How do you run Controlled Mounts?

[Gtdead]

Lately I was trying to find alternative ways to build STR characters than just the same old GWM/PAM, which I consider a fairly suboptimal guideline for generic melee builds. However it was brought to my attention that Jeremy Crawford thinks the controlled mount and the PC have separate turns using the same initiative. With this ruling you can't blend their action economy, so you can't use hit and run tactics which pretty much defeats the purpose. Essentially this ruling makes mounts way worse for melee characters in particular, with the only possible good use being using their action to prepare an attack and execute it once the condition is triggered.

There is a sentence in the RAW that is quite ambiguous, both in meaning and purpose.

You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training. 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.

Without this sentence, the mount acts on it's own turn exactly like Crawford says it does. The rules resolve this situation.

You and and an allied creature enter combat. Your initiative is 5 and the allied creature's is 10.

1) The allied creature uses it's movement and actions, then ends it's turn.
2) You use your action, spend half your movement and then use the other half to mount it (the allied creature's initiative changes to 5). You end your turn.
3) Now the allied creature acts again but it's behavior has changed and follows the controlled mount rules. It takes it's actions, uses it's movement and ends it's turn.
4) The round ends

Same thing if you beat the mount on initiative:
PC's initiative is 10, mount's is 5

1) You use your action and half your movement, then spend the rest of your movement to mount it (it's initiative changes to 10).
2) It uses it's action and movement speed and ends it's turn.
3) The round ends.

There is no rule that prohibits acting twice during a round. Whenever your initiative is up you take a turn. It doesn't conflict with the 6 second rule too. The rule states that a round lasts 6 seconds. It doesn't specify that things have to happen a particular way that fits inside this time frame. Even if you take 50 turns, once the round finishes only 6 seconds have passed.

With this sentence, we get a possibility of another interaction: That the mount acts on the PC's turn.
This sentence makes sense only if this interaction is true because up till now the mount and the PC had different turns. If you are already mounted, you and your mount act as one. If you mount it during combat, the behavior changes and the controlled behavior applies.

So this is how I read the RAW, but there are metagame considerations too.

STR characters have gotten the short end of the stick in this edition. This is because they get exactly the same scaling as their ranged counterparts, but they also have increased risk. Archery style also adds insult to injury. Essentially, the only benefit of using a melee weapon is the ability to perform attacks of opportunity, but this is diminished in this edition because AoOs are controlled by the reaction and it conflicts with other abilities, which tend to be the abilities that the melee character needs to survive. (things like Shield for example).

Being allowed to use the mount as an extension of their character gives many benefits.

1) For one, the advantage generation combined with GWM, makes melee deal more average dpr compared to archery SS/CE, as they should.
2) Second it increases their reach. More often than not, it's the melee characters that can't connect during the first round of combat. So this is a huge boost, especially for characters that have limited mobility by design.
3) It increases their survivability because now they don't have to stand in melee. They can use a reach weapon or disengage and have enough movement left to get back into a safer position.

It also brings negatives. It gives them an additional way to be controlled and the mount can easily die and force them to fight while being unable to benefit from the feat and gold investment they made.

So it makes perfect sense for me to run mounted combat as the PC and mount being one entity during combat, merging their action economy.

How do you rule controlled mounts and why? Also any arguments against my RAW analysis are welcomed.





.

[Saelethil]

I run it that a mount shares it’s riders turn. It’s less complicated and makes more sense to me.

[Dark.Revenant]

You're correct about the RAW. It sucks.

I run it as:
Any creature can submit to being a controlled mount. Controlled mounts move and act on your own turn, and you can intermingle your actions as you see fit. You don't need to use any sort of action to tell your mount to Dodge, but anything else requires your bonus action. Unintelligent mounts can only Dodge, Dash, or Disengage unless trained to be able to do something else; intelligent mounts can be told to do any valid actions/bonus actions. Mounts can use their reactions at will.

[Gtdead]

You're correct about the RAW. It sucks.

I run it as:
Any creature can submit to being a controlled mount. Controlled mounts move and act on your own turn, and you can intermingle your actions as you see fit. You don't need to use any sort of action to tell your mount to Dodge, but anything else requires your bonus action. Unintelligent mounts can only Dodge, Dash, or Disengage unless trained to be able to do something else; intelligent mounts can be told to do any valid actions/bonus actions. Mounts can use their reactions at will.

This is interesting, so if you want your mount to dash, you have to spend your bonus action? It makes a lot of sense because mounted speed can get a bit over the top. How would that interact with a hasted mount? Would it be able to use 2 dashes or only one dash per bonus action?

[Dark.Revenant]

This is interesting, so if you want your mount to dash, you have to spend your bonus action? It makes a lot of sense because mounted speed can get a bit over the top. How would that interact with a hasted mount? Would it be able to use 2 dashes or only one dash per bonus action?

You'd use your bonus action to choose both its normal action and its hasted action. I suppose if I were to write a specific exception for Haste, I'd have it automatically use Dodge + Disengage if it's not being told to do anything.

[Gtdead]

I see. Yea I like this rule, I can see myself using it and it wouldn't conflict too much with the builds I have in mind. It's a risk vs reward thing, you either use your BA to PAM and have less movement speed, or use your BA to dash and get in and out of range more efficiently. It would also affect ranged users negatively too which is a good balancing change. Ranged builds on a pegasus can be too much.

[Segev]

In my opinion, the RAW are quite clear: Crawford is simply wrong.

You both act on the same initiative, and that IS your turn. The mount's movement is no different from you using your own movement; you can do stuff in the middle of it moving just as you could when you are moving yourself. The moment you mount it, its initiative changes to yours, and it can move and act on the turn (yours) that this happens. Spend your movement to get on the mount, and it immediately can take off, dashing if you like, while you take your action and bonus action wherever you like in that whole sequence.

[greenstone]

You both act on the same initiative, and that IS your turn. The mount's movement is no different from you using your own movement; you can do stuff in the middle of it moving just as you could when you are moving yourself.

That's my reading of the rules as well.

Any other reading makes mounted combat unworkable.

Sure, it means the mount might get two turns in one round, but that evens out becauae it may lose a turn if you dismount later in the combat.

[Dark.Revenant]

Nowhere in the printed rules does it say how to make two creatures act simultaneously on the same turn. What you're describing is just your own common sense, not what the rules actually describe. The rules don't really describe anything, in fact.

Given the poorly-written ambiguity of the mounted combat rules, it's left to the DM to decide how to reconcile things. However, when discussing what the RAW interpretation is, we have to err on the side of "if it's not in the book, you can't do it." Thus Crawford's ruling is, as it often is, technically correct*; since the rules fail to explicitly explain how two simultaneous turns might work, the most-RAW reading of the rules is that you can't have two simultaneous turns—one be resolved before the other one.


*"from a certain point of view" -Obi-Wan

[Segev]

Nowhere in the printed rules does it say how to make two creatures act simultaneously on the same turn. What you're describing is just your own common sense, not what the rules actually describe. The rules don't really describe anything, in fact.Er, in the rules for Initiative, it says that all of the monsters of a same type act on the same initiative. There's absolutely no need to spell out what "acting on the same turn" means because you already know what it means: any one creature acts on the same turn as that creature.

There exist no examples of creatures who take simultaneous turns but are not on the same side. Any question of action order on the same turn is resolved by agreement of the players controlling the actors.


Given the poorly-written ambiguity of the mounted combat rules, it's left to the DM to decide how to reconcile things. However, when discussing what the RAW interpretation is, we have to err on the side of "if it's not in the book, you can't do it." Thus Crawford's ruling is, as it often is, technically correct*; since the rules fail to explicitly explain how two simultaneous turns might work, the most-RAW reading of the rules is that you can't have two simultaneous turns—one be resolved before the other one.


*"from a certain point of view" -Obi-Wan

Thing is, it IS in the book, and Crawford's ruling is just plain wrong.

[Gtdead]

Indeed there is some disconnect between initiative and turns. The exact wording is

"The GM makes one roll for an entire group of identical Creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time."

Initiative doesn't exactly determine "time". Everything is supposed to happen simultaneously, so this, along with the "open ended" description of what constitutes a turn, murk the water quite a bit.

There actually aren't any rules that specify what constitutes a turn from start to finish. It only specifies what you can do in your turn, but it doesn't say anything about when the turn ends. So technically, if you have the same initiative, you can act, the ally acts, then you move, then the ally moves, and eventually you can declare that you finished your turn. We intuitively understand turns the way it works when playing chess or cards, but in a very technical reading the rule is open ended.

In that sense, what Crawfords says isn't exactly RAW, it's just the most common interpretation of the rule.

Unless of course I missed something that is stated somewhere else other than the combat section. I'm fairly sure that the words "turn" and "end" in the same phrase only exist when describing the effect of surprise.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I used to care about this. I stopped doing so and now we do what's easiest (ie running mount + rider on the same turn) and have a table-level agreement not to do silly things.

In general, I've found that the less I cared about specific wording of rules and figuring out what's RAW and what's not and the more I cared about what is best for that particular table at that particular time, the more fun I and my table had. Usually, that means taking the simplest non-absurd reading and running with it.

[LtPowers]

We intuitively understand turns the way it works when playing chess or cards, but in a very technical reading the rule is open ended.

Given the propensity for 5e's designers to use natural language that can be interpreted by a plain reading, I think the use of the word "turn" does indeed imply a discrete set of actions that one player takes entirely before the next turn in order, just like in chess or cards.


Powers &8^]

[Zhorn]

I used to care about this. I stopped doing so and now we do what's easiest (ie running mount + rider on the same turn) and have a table-level agreement not to do silly things.

In general, I've found that the less I cared about specific wording of rules and figuring out what's RAW and what's not and the more I cared about what is best for that particular table at that particular time, the more fun I and my table had. Usually, that means taking the simplest non-absurd reading and running with it.
A healthy attitude to have, imo.
I tend to be very strict on rules for the sake of fairness in my games, so the players can read the text and have a reliable understanding of how things will run at my table. But the rules for mounted combat as written area area where I tell my players "how it's written is a bit of a mess, and while workable it is a pain".

Simultaneous turns is what I'd recommend for both simplicity and fun, but it IS a house rule.

Mounted combat deserved a more detailed write up in the PHB, and I hope it gets that treatment in the 5.5e release. Not more complex, just well organised and worded for ease of reference and understanding.

[Gtdead]

Given the propensity for 5e's designers to use natural language that can be interpreted by a plain reading, I think the use of the word "turn" does indeed imply a discrete set of actions that one player takes entirely before the next turn in order, just like in chess or cards.


Powers &8^]

Agreed and naturally I would assume that even on the same initiative, the actor needs to declare that he ends his turn in order for the next one to start his. The problem arises when they use phrases like "they act at the same time" or "it acts on your turn". Because using plain language, it can only mean that their actions are intertwined.

[Sigreid]

We've just been playing it by replacing your movement abilities with your mounts and having you take your turn.

[Gtdead]

We've just been playing it by replacing your movement abilities with your mounts and having you take your turn.

I see, so the mount couldn't take the dash/dodge/disengage action I suppose. Did you change any rules regarding it's survivability?

[da newt]

I've ruled that "The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it." means that your controlled mount and you share one common turn during which you both can take actions, BA, movements, etc. but your mount is limited to the listed actions.

With this ruling your controlled mount gives up it's ability to attack in order to act on your turn, conversely you can leave it to act on it's own turn and have free reign of it's action to attack or anything else.

I can see the logic of JC's ruling, but I don't like it and I don't think it makes any sense at all.

BTW, do you have a reference for 'Jeremy Crawford thinks the controlled mount and the PC have separate turns' ?

[Gtdead]

I've ruled that "The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it." means that your controlled mount and you share one common turn during which you both can take actions, BA, movements, etc. but your mount is limited to the listed actions.

With this ruling your controlled mount gives up it's ability to attack in order to act on your turn, conversely you can leave it to act on it's own turn and have free reign of it's action to attack or anything else.

I can see the logic of JC's ruling, but I don't like it and I don't think it makes any sense at all.

BTW, do you have a reference for 'Jeremy Crawford thinks the controlled mount and the PC have separate turns' ?

https://www.sageadvice.eu/rider-on-controlled-mount-wants-to-attack-mid-move-do-rider-and-mount-share-one-turn/

[Sigreid]

I see, so the mount couldn't take the dash/dodge/disengage action I suppose. Did you change any rules regarding it's survivability?

Hasn't really come up as mounts haven't been used a lot, but we'd probably just make the rider spend whatever kind of action they would normal have to for the mount to dash/dodge/disengage. Assuming a unintelligent mount. This does mean that the rogue cunning action would be great for mounted players, for example.

[Dark.Revenant]

Hasn't really come up as mounts haven't been used a lot, but we'd probably just make the rider spend whatever kind of action they would normal have to for the mount to dash/dodge/disengage. Assuming a unintelligent mount. This does mean that the rogue cunning action would be great for mounted players, for example.

I prefer bonus actions, so that it matches with the other cleaned-up "pet" mechanics. And so that Fighters don't have to start with 13 Dex and dip two levels of Rogue just to be able to be skilled horsemen.

[Sigreid]

I prefer bonus actions, so that it matches with the other cleaned-up "pet" mechanics. And so that Fighters don't have to start with 13 Dex and dip two levels of Rogue just to be able to be skilled horsemen.

If that came up for a concern in the group, I'd probably suggest we add it to the Mounted Combat feat and then we'd figure out what we wanted to do.

[Segev]

Simultaneous turns is what I'd recommend for both simplicity and fun, but it IS a house rule.

It really isn't. The rules clearly spell out that the mount acts on the turn you mount it, and there is no reason to assume that is some special case that changes the next time your initiative comes up. You and your mount share initiative, and you act on the same turn. The rules say so, and while you can argue that there is an alternate reading, so the DM must rule on it, that makes any interpretation equally a "house rule," and I do not think that is a good term here. It's a ruling, and I think the one most in line with the text of the RAW.

[Tanarii]

The RAW isn't crystal clear, but it's clear enough. Individual creatures have their own turns. You just share the same initiative. Either Pc acts then mount acts, or vice versa.

Edit: for anyone interested in rehashing, here's the last round:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?629883-Is-Treantmonk-right-or-wrong-about-Mounted-Combat

[Zhorn]

It really isn't. The rules clearly spell out that the mount acts on the turn you mount it, and there is no reason to assume that is some special case that changes the next time your initiative comes up. You and your mount share initiative, and you act on the same turn. The rules say so, and while you can argue that there is an alternate reading, so the DM must rule on it, that makes any interpretation equally a "house rule," and I do not think that is a good term here. It's a ruling, and I think the one most in line with the text of the RAW.

When we have word from the dev's clarifying, I take that as being the official stance on the matter. I can arrive at that ruling without it, but how it is written it is unclear enough that these debates pop up every now and then.
But to clarify, while I agree with the dev's statement on what RAW is, I do not agree that it is a good rule. I don't see it as "well the dev's clearly don't understand their own rule", no they understood, just did a poor on the implementation and writing.

If you want to debate me about this, save your energy as my heart's just not in it. Been down this road too many times and I've already surrendered to how mounted rules as presented are not worth defending with how much jumping around, cross referencing and comparing you need to do in the rules to validate either interpretation.

Scrap the PHB version as presented and just run your table in a way that makes sense.

[diplomancer]

I think the initiative rules are pretty clear, and that Crawford misunderstands them*. Maybe that's what they *meant* to do, but, as it is, creatures acting all on the same turn is possible, when they have only one roll for their initiative, for instance, or in Mounted Combat, for another instance.

Which is different from a tie in the Dex check to determine initiative; in that case, you have 2 different rolls that happened to be a tie. When that happens, the tie has to be resolved, and, once it is, it doesn't change. Those 2 creatures (or groups of creatures) will always act in different turns.

But if a DM really insisted on the silly "separate turns" rule, here's what I'd be tempted to do:
1- start combat mounted
2- give the mount the first turn, have it move in to the enemy, dashing if necessary.
3- Take my actions, bonus actions, etc.
4- use half my movement to dismount
5- use second half of my movement to remount. Mount now can, RAW, move and act again
6-have the mount disengage and move back.

Rinse and repeat.

* or worse, doesn't understand himself. If you listen to this video: https://youtu.be/99tX6tmc73Q (from about 15 to 25 minutes) it's clear that, according to Crawford, the controlled mount has its movement actions coordinated with the rider to maximize the rider's mobility, and that one of the main drawbacks of independent mounts is that they don't have that capability.

[Glorthindel]

Frankly, I took one look at the rules, thought, that's absurd, and slung the whole set of rules. Instead, I let the mount act on the players turn, mixing their actions as they see fit, and allow the mount to take any action it likes, including attack, without any cost to the PC.

I know action economy is a thing, but frankly if giving a character a free extra attack with a horse is in danger of imbalancing your game, you have more serious things to be worrying about. Sure, if the party start rocking Dragon and Griffon mounts, that will have a bit more of an effect, but that's something to consider before handing over such things. A Horse/Riding Dog/Tame Boar (and likewise, allowing a Familiar to make a piss-poor damage attack) is not going to be breaking any games.

[Tanarii]

Interesting. I consider letting them share a turn, effectively making being mounted result in a free action and upgraded movement, to be the more absurd interpretation.

At least if they act one after the other the player has to put a little thought into how they want to take advantage of that extra movement and action, because different choices provide constraints on which of their actions and the mounts actions they can use.

[Segev]

Interesting. I consider letting them share a turn, effectively making being mounted result in a free action and upgraded movement, to be the more absurd interpretation.

At least if they act one after the other the player has to put a little thought into how they want to take advantage of that extra movement and action, because different choices provide constraints on which of their actions and the mounts actions they can use.

It's not an absurd interpretation; it is how the rules say they work, and it is the most intuitive way to think about it, unless you're very used to the legacy 3.5 mindset that you need a feat to be able to move-attack-move, as well.

"The player has to put a little extra thought into it" isn't a good thing. It slows down the game to no real benefit, and it leads to those "thoughtful" moves creating very anti-verisimilitude, gamist movements and activities on the game board.

5e's entire design paradigm is intended to get the game mechanics out of the way of gameplay. It may or may not succeed at that in any given instance, but this is a case where it does it well enough. You're on a horse: you can ride the horse as easily as you could run around, yourself.

[Sception]

RAW is a pain in the butt for mounted combat. In games I run, controlled mounts share turns AND actions with their riders. If the mount has action, bonus action, or reaction abilities, then the rider can direct the mount to use them, but at the cost of using up their own action, bonus action, or reaction to do so.

Additionally, if a controlled mount is no more than one size larger than its rider and the rider either has proficiency in animal handling or the mounted combat feat (or for npcs if it makes sense for them to be skilled riders), then attacks targeting the controlled mount have disadvantage and the controlled mount has advantage on dexterity saves, dexterity (acrobatics) checks, and strength (athletics) checks.

None of that is RAW, but it works better in my games. Riders don't get free disengage or dash actions just for being mounted, but mounts still effectively get to dodge as long as the rider is skilled (animal handling or mounted combat) and the mount isn't too big. Most importantly, the mounted character can still act before, after, or during their movement, and can change that decision from round to round, just like anybody else.

It also theoretically lets me design more interesting mounts with bonus actions or reactions that a rider might take advantage of, so that there's a more meaningful distinction between different types of mounts than just their movement modes, but I haven't actually gotten around to doing that.

[Valmark]

Personally I always red it as mount and rider sharing the turn and I've never been able to read it differently- it just doesn't make sense otherwise. When you consider that the devs (or at least JC) are wrong often enough that even the SAC has mistake and that there are already other creatures that act on the same turn, it seems fairly obvious.

That said, at my table I never care about the RAW and always go with the funnier and more tactical one- which is rider and mount sharing the turn, so it all goes fine.

[Falrexion]

Mostly agreeing with the posts here but I also allow it for PCs if they happen to get the same initiative, they both have an action, bonus action, and movement but can be used as part of one turn similar to enemy NPCs.

If I have a bunch of goblins, some might rush into melee and attack and some might stay back and used ranged attacks. Then those in melee might disengage and move again where as those at range could instead try to hide. All this happens on the same turn but with a bunch of actions, bonus actions and moves.

For a mount it can move up, the player can attack, then it can use any left over movement or the dash action to move away. However, I think the big issues come from positioning on the mount. A large creature takes up four squares (if you're using a 5ft grid) and being in the middle doesn't make a huge amount of sense. So a player can use their movement to adjust their position on the mount whilst the mount only use movement to move around the map. If you have mounted combatant and you're not in range to take an opportunity attack then your mount will either have to take a hit or take the disengage action. This is where I'm afraid I've made it messy as if you want to hit a lance you have to be on the far side of the mount from the enemy you want to hit to avoid disadvantage, but then your mount is vulnerable if it doesn't disengage. This makes the second point of mounted combatant slightly less useful for lance users but great for anyone that wants a longsword or other one handed weapon that doesn't have reach and needs to be in the same side as a target. Also I don't really allow two handed weapons to be used on mounts unless they're independent so you have less coordination and more cooperation.

I assume that most turns unless you say they're dashing, a mount will take the disengage action to prevent opportunity attacks or dodge if they're not moving out of reach, but it is up to the player. Also I don't like the idea of a mount using its full movement to get to a player and then magically getting it back because the paladin has dumped dex and regularly goes last. Their turn moves to a different initiative but they don't regain any expended movement or actions until the next round.

[Segev]

I think the big issues come from positioning on the mount. A large creature takes up four squares (if you're using a 5ft grid) and being in the middle doesn't make a huge amount of sense. So a player can use their movement to adjust their position on the mount whilst the mount only use movement to move around the map. If you have mounted combatant and you're not in range to take an opportunity attack then your mount will either have to take a hit or take the disengage action. This is where I'm afraid I've made it messy as if you want to hit a lance you have to be on the far side of the mount from the enemy you want to hit to avoid disadvantage, but then your mount is vulnerable if it doesn't disengage.

I think it's easiest just to treat the mounted rider as occupying all of the mount's space. I know this gives one more minor buff to the rider's reach, but I think the simplicity of it is worth the trade-off, and it definitely goes both ways: there's no hiding on the far side of the mount from melee attackers, either.

[Valmark]

For a mount it can move up, the player can attack, then it can use any left over movement or the dash action to move away. However, I think the big issues come from positioning on the mount. A large creature takes up four squares (if you're using a 5ft grid) and being in the middle doesn't make a huge amount of sense. So a player can use their movement to adjust their position on the mount whilst the mount only use movement to move around the map. If you have mounted combatant and you're not in range to take an opportunity attack then your mount will either have to take a hit or take the disengage action. This is where I'm afraid I've made it messy as if you want to hit a lance you have to be on the far side of the mount from the enemy you want to hit to avoid disadvantage, but then your mount is vulnerable if it doesn't disengage. This makes the second point of mounted combatant slightly less useful for lance users but great for anyone that wants a longsword or other one handed weapon that doesn't have reach and needs to be in the same side as a target. Also I don't really allow two handed weapons to be used on mounts unless they're independent so you have less coordination and more cooperation.


I don't think the AoO is really a problem. "You can force an attack targeted at your mount to target you instead" has no mention of reach.

That said I treat it like Segev, where the rider occupies the mount's space. Not really an issue if you can move freely around the spaces anyway.

[Sception]

Goblins disengaging while still having their normal attack actions available on their turn is a special property of goblins. It's also a special ability of rogues and monks. I'm not comfortable with just giving that away for free to any mounted character.

Same with dashing. Rogues and Monks get special class features to dash as a bonus action. IMO it diminishes those classes of mounted characters get to dash for no action cost at all, in addition to having the higher movement speed baked into being mounted. For small sized npcs - which doesn't really hamper most casters & dex builds - this doesn't even come with the awkwardness of a larger space or difficulty navigating stairs.

I don't mind the dodge, since that doesn't get transferred to the rider for free and helps answer the fragility issues of mounts, but yeah. while shared turn is necessary for mounted combat to not be hopelessly awkward, I really don't feel comfortable with the way that interpretation of the written rules lets riders dash or disengage for free.

[Gtdead]

Goblins disengaging while still having their normal attack actions available on their turn is a special property of goblins. It's also a special ability of rogues and monks. I'm not comfortable with just giving that away for free to any mounted character.

Same with dashing. Rogues and Monks get special class features to dash as a bonus action. IMO it diminishes those classes of mounted characters get to dash for no action cost at all, in addition to having the higher movement speed baked into being mounted. For small sized npcs - which doesn't really hamper most casters & dex builds - this doesn't even come with the awkwardness of a larger space or difficulty navigating stairs.

I don't mind the dodge, since that doesn't get transferred to the rider for free and helps answer the fragility issues of mounts, but yeah. while shared turn is necessary for mounted combat to not be hopelessly awkward, I really don't feel comfortable with the way that interpretation of the written rules lets riders dash or disengage for free.

Interesting. Would you apply the same line of reasoning to feats like mobile, or items that allow for weird interactions that overlap with key class abilities? Keep in mind that to actually take advantage of a mount in melee, you need mounted combatant or you will spend more time with your face in the mud and with less money than what you should have. For ranged characters all these considerations do not apply because they don't care if they act in the same turn or not, the outcome will be mostly the same.

[Tanarii]

Mostly agreeing with the posts here but I also allow it for PCs if they happen to get the same initiative, they both have an action, bonus action, and movement but can be used as part of one turn similar to enemy NPCs.

If I have a bunch of goblins, some might rush into melee and attack and some might stay back and used ranged attacks. Then those in melee might disengage and move again where as those at range could instead try to hide. All this happens on the same turn but with a bunch of actions, bonus actions and moves.

That is not correct. It happens on the same initiative account, but each goblin takes their turn one after the other.

Just like a PC and their mount.

[Valmark]

Goblins disengaging while still having their normal attack actions available on their turn is a special property of goblins. It's also a special ability of rogues and monks. I'm not comfortable with just giving that away for free to any mounted character.

Same with dashing. Rogues and Monks get special class features to dash as a bonus action. IMO it diminishes those classes of mounted characters get to dash for no action cost at all, in addition to having the higher movement speed baked into being mounted. For small sized npcs - which doesn't really hamper most casters & dex builds - this doesn't even come with the awkwardness of a larger space or difficulty navigating stairs.

I don't mind the dodge, since that doesn't get transferred to the rider for free and helps answer the fragility issues of mounts, but yeah. while shared turn is necessary for mounted combat to not be hopelessly awkward, I really don't feel comfortable with the way that interpretation of the written rules lets riders dash or disengage for free.
Eh... It's not free. You first need to have a mount, and then need to keep it alive, and then it only works where you can actually take said mount.

That is not correct. It happens on the same initiative account, but each goblin takes their turn one after the other.

Just like a PC and their mount.

Except that nothing says this is true and everything says the opposite in the books.

[Sception]

Except that nothing says this is true and everything says the opposite in the books.

The PHB has very explicit rules for what happens when two creatures have the same initiative score:

"If a tie occurs, the GM decides the order among tied GM-controlled creatures, and the players decide the order among their tied characters. The GM can decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a player character. Optionally, the GM can have the tied characters and monsters each roll a d20 to determine the order, highest roll going first."

So yeah, the PHB does in fact very clearly say that same initiative does not result in same turn. Each creature still has a completely distinct turn which must be fully resolved before the next turn in the initiative order begins. The only thing that even vaguely implies the opposite is a single line from the mounted combat rules:

"A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it."

That is the only mention in the entirety of the published 5e rules that even implies the mount and rider share turns, and nowhere else in the entire game to individual creature turns overlap at all. Official clarifications from rules writers as to the intent have conflicted, but the most recent comes down in favor of 'turns are always separate, never overlaping', with controlled mounts' turns coming either entirely before or entirely after the rider.

So RAW is nebulous and conflicting, while RAI favors separate turns. Really the only strong case for shared turns between mount and rider comes from the fact that separate turns is just awkward and bad, but it wouldn't be the only awkward and bad bit of rules in the system.

[Segev]

The PHB has very explicit rules for what happens when two creatures have the same initiative score:

"If a tie occurs, the GM decides the order among tied GM-controlled creatures, and the players decide the order among their tied characters. The GM can decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a player character. Optionally, the GM can have the tied characters and monsters each roll a d20 to determine the order, highest roll going first."

So yeah, the PHB does in fact very clearly say that same initiative does not result in same turn. Each creature still has a completely distinct turn which must be fully resolved before the next turn in the initiative order begins. The only thing that even vaguely implies the opposite is a single line from the mounted combat rules:

"A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it."

That is the only mention in the entirety of the published 5e rules that even implies the mount and rider share turns, and nowhere else in the entire game to individual creature turns overlap at all. Official clarifications from rules writers as to the intent have conflicted, but the most recent comes down in favor of 'turns are always separate, never overlaping', with controlled mounts' turns coming either entirely before or entirely after the rider.

So RAW is nebulous and conflicting, while RAI favors separate turns. Really the only strong case for shared turns between mount and rider comes from the fact that separate turns is just awkward and bad, but it wouldn't be the only awkward and bad bit of rules in the system.
"Tied initiative" is resolved to put them on different initiatives. Monsters that explicitly roll only once for a group initiative - as is the case for all of the same type of monster, e.g. all goblins in a fight - act on the same initiative. The rules regarding it say so in that language. So no, the quote for the mount is not the only time it comes up; it comes up in a rule governing an occurrence that will happen in the vast majority of combats in any game, unless that game for some reason rarely has more than one monster of the same type in a combat.

[Valmark]

"Tied initiative" is resolved to put them on different initiatives. Monsters that explicitly roll only once for a group initiative - as is the case for all of the same type of monster, e.g. all goblins in a fight - act on the same initiative. The rules regarding it say so in that language. So no, the quote for the mount is not the only time it comes up; it comes up in a rule governing an occurrence that will happen in the vast majority of combats in any game, unless that game for some reason rarely has more than one monster of the same type in a combat.

Exactly this. And it's not even the only istance- already in the PHB you see Simulacrums acting on the caster's turn. Creatures acting together has always been a thing ever since the start of 5e (disclaimer: I haven't played the basic rules before the PHB came out, could be wrong) wether explicitely or not.

[BigRedJedi]

Mounted Combat Rules (at my tables):

- Mounting requires half your total movement speed, cannot mount if speed = 0

- An independent mount moves and acts on its own initiative and has no restrictions on its movement or actions unless otherwise specified in the stat block

- A controlled mount acts and moves on your initiative, intermingling with your actions at will, but can only take the Dash, Disengage, or Dodge actions

- A controlled mount can act or move on the round it was mounted if its previous initiative has not been reached in the current round

- A rider is treated as occupying all spaces of a mount, if that mount is only one size category larger than the rider. If the mount is more than one size larger, the rider is treated as occupying the center square/s of the mount (DM adjudicates if there are questions... Yes, this means that Medium or smaller riders on a Large-size mount are treated as occupying all 4 squares of the Large mount, it works in play)

- Opportunity Attacks: Both the mount and rider must use the Disengage action to avoid opportunity attacks for moving out of the reach of an enemy combatant. (I actually think too many DMs don't like mounts getting "free" Disengage because they are treating the mounts like a pair of shoes, instead of as a separate creature that just happens to be acting at the same time as a player. Nothing in the rules indicates that just because a mount takes the Disengage action that it somehow prevents the rider from taking an OA for moving out of an enemy's reach. The relevant PHB quote regarding this would seem to be: "In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount." This indicates that enemies check both the rider and mount to determine if opportunity attacks are provoked by movement... e.g. to avoid an opportunity attack completely, both rider and mount must Disengage.

- The Mounted Combatant Feat functions as written and adds the ability to use any Attack action in a controlled mount's stat block as a bonus action

- All other mounted combat and the Mounted Combatant feat function as written


For outdoor scenarios, this allows my players to have some added mobility (less than you might think, however, not much more than a Monk or Barbarian, if riding tier-appropriate mounts) and, in rare cases, more flexible reach for attacks. It is rare that most dungeons or caverns, however, allow for optimal use of a mount and I have yet to run any size party that had more than one player heavily invest into mounted combat. Pretty much all of these rulings make the combat flow smoothly and without weird corner cases, we have found them effective and enjoyable.

[Tanarii]

- Opportunity Attacks: Both the mount and rider must use the Disengage action to avoid opportunity attacks for moving out of the reach of an enemy combatant. (I actually think too many DMs don't like mounts getting "free" Disengage because they are treating the mounts like a pair of shoes, instead of as a separate creature that just happens to be acting at the same time as a player. Nothing in the rules indicates that just because a mount takes the Disengage action that it somehow prevents the rider from taking an OA for moving out of an enemy's reach. The relevant PHB quote regarding this would seem to be: "In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount." This indicates that enemies check both the rider and mount to determine if opportunity attacks are provoked by movement... e.g. to avoid an opportunity attack completely, both rider and mount must Disengage.

Mounted characters don't provoke OAs because they're being moved, they aren't moving.

You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
PHB 195


Except that nothing says this is true and everything says the opposite in the books.
The PHB says that different creatures have separate turns.
During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn.
PHB 189

It also tells you how to resolve ties between creatures with the same initiative count on the same page. And note that the count still applies after the beginning of a battle, it's not one and done. Various things use it on a round by round basis, legendary actions, conjured animals, summons, new creatures entering a battle.

All of which was previously established (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?629883-Is-Treantmonk-right-or-wrong-about-Mounted-Combat)

The only potentially debatable point is if the wording of the mounted combat rule makes an exception to the standard.

[BigRedJedi]

Mounted characters don't provoke OAs because they're being moved, they aren't moving.

You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
PHB 195

For an independent mount, I would agree, but it is a much less certain call with a controlled mount, as it explicitly states the controlled mount "moves as you direct it," for which a plain reading would put you squarely in the willing (implied) kind of movement that provokes an OA, if both mount and rider don't take the Disengage action. The mount's movement is effectively being substituted for the rider as it cannot move without direction from the rider.

(Not saying that there isn't a reading that agrees with you, Tanarii, more explaining why I've made the above ruling at my tables. As always, appreciate your input.)

[diplomancer]

Mounted characters don't provoke OAs because they're being moved, they aren't moving.

You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
PHB 195


The PHB says that different creatures have separate turns.
During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn.
PHB 189

It also tells you how to resolve ties between creatures with the same initiative count on the same page. And note that the count still applies after the beginning of a battle, it's not one and done. Various things use it on a round by round basis, legendary actions, conjured animals, summons, new creatures entering a battle.

All of which was previously established (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?629883-Is-Treantmonk-right-or-wrong-about-Mounted-Combat)

The only potentially debatable point is if the wording of the mounted combat rule makes an exception to the standard.

And the same page also makes another exception; groups of similar creatures, who only have one roll for initiative, all act together. Simulacra are another exception. But, as you've said, this has already been debated before.

[Valmark]

The PHB says that different creatures have separate turns.
During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn.
PHB 189

It also tells you how to resolve ties between creatures with the same initiative count on the same page. And note that the count still applies after the beginning of a battle, it's not one and done. Various things use it on a round by round basis, legendary actions, conjured animals, summons, new creatures entering a battle.

All of which was previously established (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?629883-Is-Treantmonk-right-or-wrong-about-Mounted-Combat)

The only potentially debatable point is if the wording of the mounted combat rule makes an exception to the standard.
'Each partecipant takes a turn' doesn't mean a different turn- that's adding to the text. Like diplomancer pointed out plenty of creatures act together, PC and NPC wise. Some of those using the same initiative, which means it's not even true that each creature has its own initiative (though rider and mount do have their own).

For an independent mount, I would agree, but it is a much less certain call with a controlled mount, as it explicitly states the controlled mount "moves as you direct it," for which a plain reading would put you squarely in the willing (implied) kind of movement that provokes an OA, if both mount and rider don't take the Disengage action. The mount's movement is effectively being substituted for the rider as it cannot move without direction from the rider.

(Not saying that there isn't a reading that agrees with you, Tanarii, more explaining why I've made the above ruling at my tables. As always, appreciate your input.)

Eh, willing movement has nothing to do with movement that requires your action, reaction or movement. It could be made a case for Booming Blade triggering as it only requires willing movement- at the same time, Dissonant Whispers makes you trigger AoOs despite that being unwilling movement.

[LtPowers]

"In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount." This indicates that enemies check both the rider and mount to determine if opportunity attacks are provoked by movement... e.g. to avoid an opportunity attack completely, both rider and mount must Disengage.[/i]

I'm not seeing the connection here. In fact, I'd argue that the quotation implies that the rider does not need to take the Disengage action. The whole point of allowing the attacker to target the rider on an opportunity attack provoked by the mount is because the rider would otherwise be immune to opportunity attacks, which means the rider would get no benefit from Disengage.


Powers &8^]

[BigRedJedi]

I'm not seeing the connection here. In fact, I'd argue that the quotation implies that the rider does not need to take the Disengage action. The whole point of allowing the attacker to target the rider on an opportunity attack provoked by the mount is because the rider would otherwise be immune to opportunity attacks, which means the rider would get no benefit from Disengage.


Powers &8^]

Perfectly fair reading, illustrating differences in interpretation (and not arguing that my reading is right or that yours is wrong). At my tables, to avoid the silliness of hopping on a horse and getting either:

- A better version of two-thirds of the Rogue's Cunning Action (Dash or Disengage that applies to the rider for free, with no action required by the rider... acknowledging that by my rules, Dash is still 'free' but opens greater likelihood of mount or rider taking OAs)

OR

- A worse, overall, form of mobility than being un-mounted, as you lose the ability to move between attacks, you occupy a larger area of the battlefield (tactical risks and potential spacing liabilities, except on flat, featureless plains), in exchange for a slight increase in speed or a non-magical means of alternate movement types (climb, swim, or fly)

Riding a controlled mount should give a player slightly increased mobility (and, possibly, flexibility on mounts with different movement types), amplified to give an advantage worthy of a feat in cases where the rider has Mounted Combatant. These rules have made mounted combat usable and fun for my players, without needless complication or worrying about edge cases.

Ultimately, as ever, it comes down to what works at your table and being consistent with your players.



Going to add a new bullet point to my mounted combat rules also:

- Any movement performed by a controlled mount is subtracted from the rider's movement, relevant if the rider becomes dismounted during their turn (by choice or otherwise), e.g. if the mount moves more than half of the rider's move speed on a given turn, they cannot dismount (although I would likely allow them to fall off the mount and land prone for no additional movement cost)

Considering explicitly making the mount's movement replace the the rider's movement if it would help with clarity, but none of my players have had any granularity issues so far...

[Witty Username]

I think the most reasonable reading of RAW is two simultaneous turns on the same initiative. Essentially The mounts turn can start when you mount it and before your turn ends. Any when your turn comes you have the rules on moving on the same initiative. It has some interactions to it to take into account.

For example, in same turn concept. Mount and You start in an effect like say moonbeam.
Turn starts both take damage.
In simultaneous turns on the same initiative. Mounts starts turn, takes damage, carries You out of effect and into melee range-You turn starts make an attack action-You turn ends-Mount takes the disengage action-you do not provoke due to it being forced movement- mount does not provoke due to disengage.

[Kenny_Snoggins]

You're correct about the RAW. It sucks.

I run it as:
Any creature can submit to being a controlled mount. Controlled mounts move and act on your own turn, and you can intermingle your actions as you see fit. You don't need to use any sort of action to tell your mount to Dodge, but anything else requires your bonus action. Unintelligent mounts can only Dodge, Dash, or Disengage unless trained to be able to do something else; intelligent mounts can be told to do any valid actions/bonus actions. Mounts can use their reactions at will.

I don't hate that approach-- seems reasonable. I think a good modification to it would be to allow more and more actions to be done by the mount without using your BA as a function of your animal handling skill proficiency. Like, make a 'passive' animal handling score, and at certain benchmarks, the rider can make the mount do things with no action required, and below that it takes either a bonus action or whole action. Would incentivize a rarely taken skill.