Riders taking cover on mounts.

[Ogun]

I'm trying to plan out tactics for a mounted Battle Smith.
IRL, riders can take cover by hanging off the side of their horse horizontally, without dismounting.

How does this play out in game?
I think a creature in line of sight counts as 1/2 cover, no matter what the size.
Taking cover just costs movement, a far as I can tell, and falling prone cost no movement.
The rider isn't using his own movement for much anyway.

I calculate +2 to AC and Dex saves against area effects, disadvantage on ranged attacks made against the rider, advantage on melee attacks against the rider, and disadvantage on all attacks made by the rider?


How would you adjudicate this?

[PhoenixPhyre]

My answer as a DM--no. Not without dismounting (with all the attendant costs and tradeoffs). The system's abstraction isn't detailed enough to handle it, and it becomes something effectively "free" (and thus an automatic action). Which is both boring and not so good for the game.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I would be adding more checks to stay mounted, and probably disadvantage to stay mounted where I would have normally put a check in.
Out of curiosity, how do you see this working, unless the DM gives you a very powerful mount? Standard mounts in 5e are pretty disposable already, and insentivising enemies to target them...

[MaxWilson]

I'm trying to plan out tactics for a mounted Battle Smith.
IRL, riders can take cover by hanging off the side of their horse horizontally, without dismounting.

How does this play out in game?
I think a creature in line of sight counts as 1/2 cover, no matter what the size.
Taking cover just costs movement, a far as I can tell, and falling prone cost no movement.
The rider isn't using his own movement for much anyway.

I calculate +2 to AC and Dex saves against area effects, disadvantage on ranged attacks made against the rider, advantage on melee attacks against the rider, and disadvantage on all attacks made by the rider?

How would you adjudicate this?

Mounted combat rules: "if an effect moves your mount against its will while you’re on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or fall off the mount, landing prone in a space within 5 feet of it. If you’re knocked prone while mounted, you must make the same saving throw."

If you pass the save, you're now both mounted and prone instead of just prone, so... I guess combining prone and mounted is kosher. (Since you're going prone voluntarily you don't have to make the saving throw.)

Yes, +2 to AC and Dex saves against area effects, disadvantage on ranged attacks made against the rider, advantage on melee attacks against the rider, and disadvantage on all attacks made by the rider sums it up. Could optionally apply the DMG rules for hitting cover (i.e. if the attack roll misses only due to the +2, it targets the mount with that same attack roll, hitting unless the mount's AC is so high that it misses).

[MoiMagnus]

Do you play with the houserule that says that if an attack miss because of a cover, that's the cover that take the attack? Because here, you're essentially hiding behind the horse.

Yes -> I'd probably allow it (though I don't play with this variant, as it's unpractical with the way 5e disadvantages work).
No -> I'd definitely not allow it as a base mechanics. I'd consider adding it as an effect of the Mounted Combatant feat, but I probably would not.

[da newt]

I grew up riding horses - sure you can duck behind their neck or hunch down a bit, but the Spaghetti Western hang off the other side is BS movie stuff.

Short answer - nope.

Longer answer - even if you could manage to get most of yourself behind the bulk of your mount on the unexposed side away from the enemy, you are just exposing your mount to attack/damage and throwing off it's balance and maneuverability too. Doing this during combat is foolishly dangerous to you and your mount.

From a rules perspective - this would cause issues w/ Mounted Combatant feat.

[Ogun]

Since we are talking fantasy, I think spaghetti western exploits are about right.
Doable but not practical or common, like archers in full plate.
As to durability,I've read that Steel Defender is both durable and best played as a damage sponge.
Since I want to play a "horse archer" , the using the Defender as cover made sense to me.
I will now assume that taking cover while still riding will not work at any table.

Max Wilson, I think you have found the most balanced way to model this.
Mounted and prone is a thing, it has benefits and penalties and there's a DC to do it.
Falling prone costs no movement,so if you fail, you still have your full movement to spend on getting on your feet and remounting the Steel Defender.
If you wanted to mount from prone, it would mostly work out the same,as being prone makes movement cost and extra 1 foot for every foot spent.
So, one could mount while prone.
I'm assuming this would be sitting up, grabbing the stirrups and climbing into a prone position on the mount.

Given all that,I propose that a rider should be able to lay prone on his horse for free, without making a DC check.
The benefit he gets is negated by the penalty of the prone condition.
It will be really beneficial to spellcasters who use save based spells, and much less so for anyone else.


Dismounting doesn't work for run and gun tactics, but it could still be useful.
I think a normal mounted character could attack, ride away from his foes, dismount and take cover, only to remount and ride on his next turn.
I'm not 100% sure of that, but as a Battle Smith, it may not apply anyway.
Since the Steel Defender acts immediately after your turn, you can't dismount right after it moves, unless that is the action that you Ready.
Spending an action dismounting instead of attacking will seldom if ever be good tactics.

Somy mounted Battle Smiths turn might look like:
-Get up from Prone
-Attack or Cast
-Lie Prone on Steel Defender.
-Bonus Action command Steel Defender.

The Steel Defender would be ordered runaway.
The best way to run away would depend on circumstance of course, but I'm wondering if you could have them move , then Ready to Dash when any opponent gets within 10 feet.
Obviously a foe could alter the rest of their turn to Dash after you or use a ranged attack, and a group of foes could use their own ready attacks.
But it seems useful against melee types, especially if they aren't using throwable weapons.

Against archers, readying to Dash behind cover would need some trigger that happens before the attacks are launched, so it probably can't work.

Hmm, I know that Mounts can Disengage action protects the ride, but does a mounts Hide action Hide the rider?

[Valmark]

I'm not 100% sure of that, but as a Battle Smith, it may not apply anyway.
Since the Steel Defender acts immediately after your turn, you can't dismount right after it moves, unless that is the action that you Ready.
Spending an action dismounting instead of attacking will seldom if ever be good tactics.

Somy mounted Battle Smiths turn might look like:
-Get up from Prone
-Attack or Cast
-Lie Prone on Steel Defender.
-Bonus Action command Steel Defender.

The Steel Defender would be ordered runaway.
The best way to run away would depend on circumstance of course, but I'm wondering if you could have them move , then Ready to Dash when any opponent gets within 10 feet.
Obviously a foe could alter the rest of their turn to Dash after you or use a ranged attack, and a group of foes could use their own ready attacks.
But it seems useful against melee types, especially if they aren't using throwable weapons.

Against archers, readying to Dash behind cover would need some trigger that happens before the attacks are launched, so it probably can't work.

Hmm, I know that Mounts can Disengage action protects the ride, but does a mounts Hide action Hide the rider?

It kinda depends on wether the DM rules that the Steel Defender can be a controlled mount or not. If it can be I see no reason for it to act differently from a 'normal' controlled mount.

I don't think a mount Hiding would Hide their rider. It doesn't make much sense- if I, horse, ride behind a wall and stay still and silent while my rider is causing a ruckus why should they be hidden?

It's not like if the mount Disengages then the rider Disengages too- it's just that the rules on opportunity attacks make the rider not trigger them. I don't think there is anything regarding that for the Hide action.

[MoiMagnus]

I don't think a mount Hiding would Hide their rider. It doesn't make much sense- if I, horse, ride being a wall and stay still and silent while my rider is causing a ruckus why should they be hidden?

Yeah, the mount can't compensate for the rider's noise, so that's a no for "standard" hiding. But in the chaos of a battlefield, just having unpredictable movement and breaking line of sight is arguably enough to be hidden, and that's something the mount can do for the rider (as long as the rider is not shooting commands loudly or something like that).

[Paeleus]

Would the Lightfoot Halfling racial feature Naturally Stealthy be applicable while mounted?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Would the Lightfoot Halfling racial feature Naturally Stealthy be applicable while mounted?

Uh, how is a small creature mounted on a medium creature hiding behind another medium creature? How does that make sense in-universe? I can see hiding behind a Large creature, but even then you could be seen through its legs (and aren't small enough to hide behind a leg, like an unmounted halfling could).

[Paeleus]

Uh, how is a small creature mounted on a medium creature hiding behind another medium creature? How does that make sense in-universe? I can see hiding behind a Large creature, but even then you could be seen through its legs (and aren't small enough to hide behind a leg, like an unmounted halfling could).

Ah, yes. My previous post was kind of vague, sorry for that. I was wondering if the mounted LF halfling could use the Hide action, and have the mount be the creature (the mount being at least one size larger than the halfling) that the halfling uses to obscure line of sight.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ah, yes. My previous post was kind of vague, sorry for that. I was wondering if the mounted LF halfling could use the Hide action, and have the mount be the creature (the mount being at least one size larger than the halfling) that the halfling uses to obscure line of sight.

Not while mounted. You have to be behind (relative to the observer) the concealing creature, not on top of it. So you could dismount and then use it, but you have to dismount first.

Basically, my position is that, while mounted, you're in view and (mostly) fixed in place. You get benefits of being mounted, but you also pay penalties. No free lunch here.

[Paeleus]

Not while mounted. You have to be behind (relative to the observer) the concealing creature, not on top of it. So you could dismount and then use it, but you have to dismount first.

Basically, my position is that, while mounted, you're in view and (mostly) fixed in place. You get benefits of being mounted, but you also pay penalties. No free lunch here.

Interesting. I swear I'm not trying to make this a RAW vs. RAI thing, but where did you find that you have to be behind a creature?

I agree that there should be no free lunch. Wouldn't the cost of your Action be the cost? Or even a BA if you invest 2 levels in rogue? Heck, even the BA conflict with controlling said mount is itself a cost.

Thanks for the responses. I love little mental exercises like these.

[PhantomSoul]

Interesting. I swear I'm not trying to make this a RAW vs. RAI thing, but where did you find that you have to be behind a creature?

I agree that there should be no free lunch. Wouldn't the cost of your Action be the cost? Or even a BA if you invest 2 levels in rogue? Heck, even the BA conflict with controlling said mount is itself a cost.

Thanks for the responses. I love little mental exercises like these.

Aside from just being logical that hiding in plain sight doesn't work well,



Hiding
The GM decides when circumstances are appropriate for Hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop Hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.

You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase.
An Invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its Passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.

In Combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of Hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the GM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an Attack roll before you are seen.

(Emphasis mine)

And Lightfoot Halflings don't get an exception to that aspect:


Naturally Stealthy. You can attempt to hide even
when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least
one size larger than you.

(Emphasis mine)

Edit: For clarity, that doesn't mean you have to be behind the entire creature, but it does mean you have to be (fully) obscured by it (or something else). The DM rules whether a case is sufficient, but that's just how the game works anyhow haha

[Ogun]

Good points Valmark.
I was hoping that riding a Hiding mount might have some advantage, seeing as you are not running or walking.

If I could control the Steel Defender like I would control a normal mount, I could use the bonus action in a different way, and use the Defenders movement differently.
I would be tempted to get a Familiar AND a Homunculus.

What do you think of using the Ready action to waste an opponents turn?

[Sigreid]

I'd let you do it with an animal handling or maybe athletics roll. Of course what you've really done is encouraged them to kill your horse so I consider it a fair trade.