PDA

View Full Version : Does mounted combat require a reach weapon? (feat. Centaur grappler)



Greywander
2019-03-06, 04:32 AM
Okay, so bear with me on this, as the line of logic here was a bit circuitous. It started with thinking about grappling builds and ends with the realization that riding a large mount might require a reach weapon.

So I was thinking about different party compositions, with one particular element being a grappler. Now, there's many ways to build a grappler, but in particular I was thinking about EK fighter 11 for Longstrider, Enlarge/Reduce, and three attack, plus rogue 2 for Athletics Expertise and Cunning Action. I was thinking about optimal races for such a build and noticed that the centaur seems to be a great fit. Here's what you get from a centaur that helps with grappling:
+2 to Strength, for better Athletics checks and more carry weight
40 foot speed; grapplers also make good interceptors, and more speed helps with dragging your victims
Natural weapons (hooves), to better stomp on your victims faces while your hands are full
Extra carry weight (count as one size larger); again, great for dragging around your victims

Here's the basic MO:

Pre-cast Longstrider
Cast Enlarge on myself at the start of combat
Identify the two biggest threats on the field
Bum rush the targets
Grab one in each hand
Shove them both prone
Drag them back to my team mates for collective face stomping

I was thinking about that last point, and realized that a centaur is part horse. Why go to the effort to drag my enemies back to my team, when I can bring my team with me? It seems they removed the wording that let's centaurs mount medium sized creatures, so no centaur Voltron, but I can still bring a Small creature with me. My first two thoughts where either a paladin for extra defense (auras and healing), or a rogue for faster killing of things. The thing is, there's a bit of a problem... the prone condition.

Now, there's a few different reasons you'd want to shove someone prone while grappling them. It makes it harder for them to escape (they have to waste movement standing up), it gives them disadvantage on their attacks, and it gives you and your friends advantage on your attacks against them. At least, as long as you're within 5 feet of them, otherwise your attacks have disadvantage. And it's that last point that becomes a bit problematic. That means that even using a reach weapon (like a lance) from more than 5 feet away has disadvantage against a prone enemy.

So the question is, are we within 5 feet of an enemy while mounted? Let's do some math.

Centaurs are 4 feet tall at the withers (shoulders), which is actually pretty small for a horse. And when I say "small" I mean they are pony-sized. According to Wikipedia, the difference between a horse and a pony is that every under 56-59 inches (depending on who you ask) is a pony, while everything over that is a horse. 4 feet is only 48 inches. So... maybe that's why they're Medium sized creatures instead of Large like horses.

With your arm hanging at your side, your hand is about at mid-upper thigh height, which is probably roughly at the withers height of whatever you are mounted on. Thus, when riding a centaur you need a weapon about 4 feet long just to touch the ground. If your target is 5 feet in front of you, then we can use the Pythagorean Theorem to find the distance. To do this, we'll assume your arm is about 2 feet long. a^2 + b^2 = c^2 --> 5^2 + (4+2)^2 = 25 + 36 = 61, so your target is just under 8 feet away... Well, your arm is about 2 feet, so you'll need a weapon with at least 6 feet of length to reach your opponent. That's... a bit of a stretch, but it's not so ludicrous that it would break suspension of disbelief.

But wait, we still having figured in that our centaur is Enlarged. This doubles his height to 8 feet, and since he occupies a 10x10 square instead of a 5x5 square, we should assume that a prone enemy is 7.5 feet in front of us rather than 5 feet (assuming we are centered on our mount). Now that math looks like a^2 + b^2 = c^2 --> 7.5^2 + (8+2)^2 = 56.25 + 100 = 156.25, which gives us a distance of roughly 12 and a half feet. If we really lean forward in our saddle, we could just barely tap our target with a reach weapon.

Now, this is all assuming a target is laying down (prone). The math is a bit more favorable if they're standing up. On an unenlarged centaur, the enemy is just a bit over 5 feet away (directly in front of us), but since we're mounted we may need to angle downward slightly, hence slightly over 5 feet instead of exactly 5 feet. This means we need a weapon at least 3 feet long, which is pretty typical for one-handed weapons. But on our enlarged centaur, we have to angle down further, plus they're now 7.5 feet in front of us, so we're probably looking at a weapon 6 to 8 feet long, on top of our 2 foot arms. While some greatswords can get to be 6 feet long, you pretty much won't find any one-handed weapons, aside from things like spears or staves, that get that kind of length. Again, it's a stretch for non-reach weapons.

Now, the good news for mounted combatants is that horses are much smaller, typically closer to 6 feet rather than 8 feet, so the math will be a bit more favorable in determining if you can reach your opponent. But there are a lot more Large creatures that you might want to use as a mount, many of which will be closer in size to our Enlarged centaur. I mean, do we have specific measurements for, say, a gryphon?

Now, people did historically fight from horseback using swords and axes and the like, usually smacking their enemy on the head or back as they rode past (or so it is in the movies). So you could certainly create a fluff excuse as to why you can reach anything with a 5 foot reach while seated on a creature that occupies a 10x10x10 cube (because of course horses aren't really 10 feet wide). Likewise, even with our centaur grappler, we could fluff something like, he holds the enemies up by their legs, dangling in the air well within striking distance. They're still grappled, and they're arguably still prone, even if they fall it won't be enough to take damage.

Anyway, thoughts? The rules don't seem to be very clear on where your character is while mounted on another creature, which makes range calculations a bit tricky. It's probably fine to treat a creature as within reach of you if they're within reach of your mount, if your mount is Large or smaller, but when you start getting into larger and larger creatures (like, say, an ancient dragon), that's not really believable anymore.

And yes, I realize the simic hybrid is literally a couple pages down from the centaur. The grappling appendages are a tempting feature, but they lose a lot of the other things that make centaurs good for grappling, so it's a trade-off. They can grapple four targets at a time, but lack the carry capacity to drag them around.

NaughtyTiger
2019-03-06, 09:40 AM
Crawford muddied the water on this so bad.

At some point he said that you could be anywhere you want to be on the mount. (ie any square).
But he is so loosely goosey, you can be under the mount, too.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/01/02/does-a-medium-rider-on-a-large-mount-need-at-least-7-5-reach-to-make-melee-attacks-then/

So conceivably, you can be on the horse's head, right up close and personal.
or way in the center and a reach weapon is needed to attack you (mounted combatant feat means they can't attack the horse)

But, screw Crawford, rules by tweet is dumb, so...

as a DM, at my table, no a reach weapon is not required for normal combat.
Yes, a prone dude needs a reach weapon to be poked by a rider. (and vice versa)

stoutstien
2019-03-06, 12:41 PM
Imo as as it matches the campaign narrative/ logic why not. If a halfling wants to run around the top of an elephant and slide down it's trunk to stab mooks with a dagger and it's a high fantasy game? Go for it.
Same time if the game is set more dark n gritty the same player may have to use a bow and think about the mount blocking shots if they get close.

Foxhound438
2019-03-06, 07:04 PM
Oh gosh, that's a long OP. Forgive me, I read long enough to get the premise and see that it's getting into finicky "real world measurements" based on assumptions of dimensions, and at the point where we're doing that it starts to really bog down the game in a lot of ways. I don't necessarily agree with "game rules adherence" to the point that we're not allowed to hit someone with a lightning bolt because they aren't exactly north of you, but something like riding a horse shouldn't be so complicated when we're playing a game. It's not officially correct, but the way I rule it is that, if you're riding a horse, you occupy the same space as it. Yes, all of the same space, even if it's not the most immersive thing as you definitely aren't wrapped around your horse entirely, but honestly your horse isn't a 10' cube either. Swinging swords at someone from the top of a horse is in fact a thing that can be done.

NaughtyTiger
2019-03-06, 10:52 PM
Oh gosh, that's a long OP. Forgive me, I read long enough to get the premise and see that it's getting into finicky "real world measurements" based on assumptions of dimensions, and at the point where we're doing that it starts to really bog down the game in a lot of ways. I don't necessarily agree with "game rules adherence" to the point that we're not allowed to hit someone with a lightning bolt because they aren't exactly north of you, but something like riding a horse shouldn't be so complicated when we're playing a game. It's not officially correct, but the way I rule it is that, if you're riding a horse, you occupy the same space as it. Yes, all of the same space, even if it's not the most immersive thing as you definitely aren't wrapped around your horse entirely, but honestly your horse isn't a 10' cube either. Swinging swords at someone from the top of a horse is in fact a thing that can be done.

It was the swinging swords at a prone target that is the question. That isn't a thing that can be done with a 5ft reach

JoeJ
2019-03-06, 11:10 PM
It was the swinging swords at a prone target that is the question. That isn't a thing that can be done with a 5ft reach

Because bending down isn't a thing?

Polo players hit targets rolling on the ground from horseback, and according to this (https://www.woodmallets.com/selecting-polo-mallets/), the most popular length for polo mallets is 52".

Ganymede
2019-03-06, 11:27 PM
I'ma say that a horse and rider both count as a large creature for these purposes and both equally take up a 10' square like regular large creatures.

Greywander
2019-03-07, 01:44 AM
Crawford muddied the water on this so bad.

At some point he said that you could be anywhere you want to be on the mount. (ie any square).
But he is so loosely goosey, you can be under the mount, too.
[...]
But, screw Crawford, rules by tweet is dumb, so...
It can be nice when you have a voice of nominal authority settle the matter in your favor, but it seems like all too often Crawford makes not very sensible rulings, occasionally contradicting something he said earlier, or even outright contradicting existing rules.

That said, I do like the image of clambering around on your mount to get within reach of something, probably with an Athletics check to make sure you don't fall off. I was playing Dragon's Dogma a number of months ago, so the idea of climbing around on large monsters is still fresh in my mind (although usually you are killing said monsters, not using them as a mount). That said, the saddle still needs to be in one specific spot, and I would expect some sort of repercussion if you try and ride your mount outside of the saddle.


Oh gosh, that's a long OP. [...] It's not officially correct, but the way I rule it is that, if you're riding a horse, you occupy the same space as it. Yes, all of the same space, even if it's not the most immersive thing as you definitely aren't wrapped around your horse entirely, but honestly your horse isn't a 10' cube either. Swinging swords at someone from the top of a horse is in fact a thing that can be done.
Yeah, I did get a bit carried away. The point of the real world measurements was to try and get an idea if it would be remotely realistic, not to say, "You're 1.7 inches too far away!" But when you're 12 feet away, it does stretch the suspension of disbelief that you would be able to poke them with a shortsword.


It was the swinging swords at a prone target that is the question. That isn't a thing that can be done with a 5ft reach

Because bending down isn't a thing?

Polo players hit targets rolling on the ground from horseback, and according to this (https://www.woodmallets.com/selecting-polo-mallets/), the most popular length for polo mallets is 52".
These are both good points. According to that link, even horses over 5 feet tall (if I did the conversion right) still only require a mallet about 53 inches long, about 4 and a half feet. Where this gets tricky, though, is that while this may be true for a horse, I doubt it continues to hold true for other Large sized creatures, which includes our 8 foot tall Enlarged centaur, and yet both they and the horse are considered the same size category. Since they're the same size, one would think the same rules would apply.


I'ma say that a horse and rider both count as a large creature for these purposes and both equally take up a 10' square like regular large creatures.
This is probably the best way to handle it if you want to stay sane, but it wouldn't hold for larger creatures (i.e. Huge, Gargantuan). Perhaps for mounts one size larger than you, you are treated as if you occupied the same spaces as your mount; for mounts two sizes larger than you, you need a reach or ranged weapon, and enemies need a reach or ranged weapon to hit you; for mounts three sizes larger than you, you are beyond melee range altogether and must use a ranged weapon.

Edit: I just realized that this rule would have interesting implications for playing a small race. You would need a reach weapon while riding a Large creature, while a Medium race would not.

NaughtyTiger
2019-03-07, 11:35 AM
Because bending down isn't a thing?

Polo players hit targets rolling on the ground from horseback, and according to this (https://www.woodmallets.com/selecting-polo-mallets/), the most popular length for polo mallets is 52".

um, a standing dude has to bend down to stab a prone dude. so yes bending down is a thing.
a dude in full armor sitting atop a 6ft tall horse would need to bend down 1 ft below a horse belly.

Polo players use reach mallets, thanks for pointing that out.
and according to this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightly_sword, most swords are 30 inches.



I'ma say that a horse and rider both count as a large creature for these purposes and both equally take up a 10' square like regular large creatures.

i am surprisngly okay with this. i am okay with extending this to everyone on the mount (everyone in an elephant's howdah)


I was playing Dragon's Dogma a number of months ago, so the idea of climbing around on large monsters is still fresh in my mind (although usually you are killing said monsters, not using them as a mount).
the DMG has rules for climbing top bigass monsters that fully captures this feeling.