Lances and Find Steed - How good is mounted combat really?

[Greywander]

A few days ago I was looking at Find Steed and Find Greater Steed, and was struck with the idea of building a classic knight in shining armor type of character. So probably a Devotion Paladin wielding a lance and shield, with a longsword as backup.

But the more I was thinking about it, I can't help but think of other combinations that are strictly better.

For example, I could ditch the lance and the Mounted Combatant feat for PAM and a spear. With Improved Divine Smite, that bonus action attack is a lot more significant than the slightly higher damage die of the lance. If you really need the reach, then you could ditch the shield and get a glaive or pike or something instead.

I'm just left wondering if mounted combat is even worth investing anything into? Yeah, if you're a paladin, you might as well cast Find Steed or Find Greater Steed, but if your mount dies then no biggie. It's not a core part of your build, just a benefit you sometimes lose. In order to get the most out of your mount, it seems like you'd need to leverage the part of Find Steed that allows spells you cast on yourself to also affect your mount, but that doesn't require any investment beyond preparing and casting the spell, though it may benefit from keeping your mount alive for longer.

Is there a way to optimize mounted combat so that it is at least competitive with other options, like PAM? Or are mounts destined to remain an addon bonus that you can discard when it dies?

[LudicSavant]

A few days ago I was looking at Find Steed and Find Greater Steed, and was struck with the idea of building a classic knight in shining armor type of character. So probably a Devotion Paladin wielding a lance and shield, with a longsword as backup.

But the more I was thinking about it, I can't help but think of other combinations that are strictly better.

For example, I could ditch the lance and the Mounted Combatant feat for PAM and a spear. With Improved Divine Smite, that bonus action attack is a lot more significant than the slightly higher damage die of the lance. If you really need the reach, then you could ditch the shield and get a glaive or pike or something instead.

I'm just left wondering if mounted combat is even worth investing anything into? Yeah, if you're a paladin, you might as well cast Find Steed or Find Greater Steed, but if your mount dies then no biggie. It's not a core part of your build, just a benefit you sometimes lose. In order to get the most out of your mount, it seems like you'd need to leverage the part of Find Steed that allows spells you cast on yourself to also affect your mount, but that doesn't require any investment beyond preparing and casting the spell, though it may benefit from keeping your mount alive for longer.

Is there a way to optimize mounted combat so that it is at least competitive with other options, like PAM? Or are mounts destined to remain an addon bonus that you can discard when it dies?

PAM is certainly very good, to be sure, but there are some potential mitigating elements you may wish to consider:

First, the main nice thing about a mount isn't the lance's damage die, it's keeping the mount alive (for its precious mobility) and giving you Advantage. Paladins like being in melee, but trudge along at a glacial 30 feet of movement... and if your mount being dead *ever* leads to being stuck out of melee, that cuts out a lot (or potentially all) of PAM's theoretical lead.

Likewise, that Advantage is getting you more hits and crits, and unlike PAM it's giving you those extra hits without any extra action economy investment. Unfortunately it's limited to just creatures smaller than your mount, so the mileage certainly varies.

As for PAM, its use case becomes better and better the less you have to do with your bonus action and reaction already. By contrast, if you already have attractive reactions and bonus actions, PAM becomes less attractive. It also locks you into a limited class of weaponry, which may or may not matter (e.g. if loot is more random, then you might end up with a sweet longsword that you just can't use with your feat).

[Segev]

Consider that mules are cheap and small characters can ride them. Add in that mounts can dash without harming your own action economy. If you have mounted combatant, you can mitigate some (but not all) damage sources against your mount.

The benefits of the mount are good. A lance is a perfectly fine weapon, especially if you put a shield in your other hand. Especially at levels before you get feats.

Note for small characters: lances are not Heavy.

[stoutstien]

Generally PaM/GWM is hard to beat but the big advantage with the lance is the trifecta of reach, a large damage die, and being one handed(shield). Combined with the extra action economy and mobility mounts grants you that's a lot of tools not relying on any feats at all. That frees up space for things like IR or fey touched.

[sithlordnergal]

Mounted Combat is really handy for keeping your mount alive. That said, if you're just looking for a bonus action attack while mounted, may I make a suggestion?

Dual Wielder, one level of Fighter for Two Weapon Fighting, dual wield lances while mounted.

[JLandan]

Mounted combat is really more about mobility than damage.

What I've always disliked is that it is limited by location. It's no use in cities mostly, little use in jungle or dense woods. absolutely no use indoors (well, there is an exception in my experience).

I once ran a Ranger goblin who rode a giant spider that would climb walls and ceilings. the goblin was archery based and would shoot down at enemies while strapped to his trusty arachnid. I fed it from a bag of tricks. Not a shining knight example.

When the terrain permits, it can be devastating. Care for horses can be burdensome, but if you produce and dismiss it magically, that's not a worry.

[Rhaegar14]

Somewhat tangential, but my favorite mounted combat build that I've yet to play in 5e is to pair up with a Moon Druid and optimize to ride them into battle. What I've learned from theorycrafting that (the rider character doesn't have to be a Paladin) is that to get best use out of the Mounted Combatant feat, it's critical that you have a good way to exploit the advantage. Paladins like to crit more often, but the obvious answer is GWM (and its synergy with PAM), so I'm inclined to agree with you that Lances just aren't very good if feats are on the table. Using lance and shield and crit fishing does, however, help you keep your mount alive, since you can force attacks against your mount to target you and you'll have high AC.

You can potentially make use of ye olde Hexblade dip -- two levels and you get the expanded crit range and can use Charisma for attacks to exploit Elven Accuracy, with a side bonus of being able to Eldritch Blast from your flying mount at higher levels when the encounter supports it.

[Hytheter]

The problem to me with mounted combatant is that it can protect your mount from being attacked but it will still likely die to a single AoE.

[Rhaegar14]

The problem to me with mounted combatant is that it can protect your mount from being attacked but it will still likely die to a single AoE.

This is somewhat improved by the addition of the Find Greater Steed spell, but in no way do I want to suggest that makes you wrong lol.

[Tvtyrant]

A few days ago I was looking at Find Steed and Find Greater Steed, and was struck with the idea of building a classic knight in shining armor type of character. So probably a Devotion Paladin wielding a lance and shield, with a longsword as backup.

But the more I was thinking about it, I can't help but think of other combinations that are strictly better.

For example, I could ditch the lance and the Mounted Combatant feat for PAM and a spear. With Improved Divine Smite, that bonus action attack is a lot more significant than the slightly higher damage die of the lance. If you really need the reach, then you could ditch the shield and get a glaive or pike or something instead.

I'm just left wondering if mounted combat is even worth investing anything into? Yeah, if you're a paladin, you might as well cast Find Steed or Find Greater Steed, but if your mount dies then no biggie. It's not a core part of your build, just a benefit you sometimes lose. In order to get the most out of your mount, it seems like you'd need to leverage the part of Find Steed that allows spells you cast on yourself to also affect your mount, but that doesn't require any investment beyond preparing and casting the spell, though it may benefit from keeping your mount alive for longer.

Is there a way to optimize mounted combat so that it is at least competitive with other options, like PAM? Or are mounts destined to remain an addon bonus that you can discard when it dies?

I think getting advantage on attacks and a massive boost to movement is pretty good. The lance isn't necessarily the best weapon but reach is nice.

If there is any one major irritant it is that there are no huge or gargantuan Find Greater Steed mounts, so you only can get advantage on medium targets unless you want to start buying creatures to tame.

[Hytheter]

This is somewhat improved by the addition of the Find Greater Steed spell, but in no way do I want to suggest that makes you wrong lol.

Greater Steed certainly helps, but it's a pretty late acquisition and even then there are high CR AoE attacks that will outright kill the mount on a failed save.

[heavyfuel]

A big issue with Mounted Combat is the mount. Mounts can't easily access a lot of places the humanoid PCs can. People usually talk about dungeons, but it's more than that. Mounts can't go into taverns or keeps or a lot of places adventurers love going to.

Your build is basically relegated to open spaces and against grounded enemies, and how often are you fighting under these circumstances? Maybe 50% of the time?

Being small does make it easier to have your dog accompany you, but it's more "hard, but not impossible" rather than "easy". Plus, having a Medium mount means you lose one of the main benefits of Mounted Combatant, the Adv against targets smaller than your mount.

As for Find Steed, it's a crap spell. Gaining an intelligent mount is nice, but the low HP and AC of mounts mean they're not at all resilient in battle. Plus, a slot spent on getting a mount is a slot not spent Smiting/Buffing. You can summon the mount on your downtime, but that basically means making your Long Rests into 32 hour rests rather than 8 hour ones. Not a huge problem, but it doesn't help.

Find Greater Steed, on the other had, is amazing! Not because the mounts are more durable, but because they have much better utility, ie, movement modes.

Anyway, that's my 2cp

[Evaar]

A few days ago I was looking at Find Steed and Find Greater Steed, and was struck with the idea of building a classic knight in shining armor type of character. So probably a Devotion Paladin wielding a lance and shield, with a longsword as backup.

This is not that character type, but another character type deeply associated with mounted combat and using a more synergistic weapon than the lance is the Double Scimitar using Tairnadal Elf from Eberron. You get your 3 attacks with that weapon without the feat cost, although Revenant Blade is a solid half-feat if you want to go Dex-based.

Anyway, sorry to answer your question with "do something else" but if you were just looking for a character concept that's a good excuse to use a mount, this is an alternative.

[Greywander]

I guess at the end of the day, the question is why I would take Mounted Combatant over another feat. As a paladin, I'd get the mount for free anyway, and the lance is a perfectly serviceable weapon, but depending on my feat choice (e.g. PAM, GWM) I might end up using a different weapon. I think Rhaegar14 is right that to make Mounted Combatant worth it, you have to find a way to really exploit that advantage. And from the math I've seen, paladin crit fishing builds are not optimal.

So maybe the answer is to skip Mounted Combatant and not really optimize for mounted combat at all. I can still ride a mount, and I can still wield a lance, but I wouldn't really have anything invested into those options. Instead I could take, say, HAM and Shield Master (assuming Vuman), or something.

I feel like a mounted build would work better with a cavalry archer type of character. If I still wanted Find Greater Steed, then bard might be an option, grabbing it via Magical Secrets, though I'm not sure bards are especially strong archers. A cav archer riding a pegasus would be pretty dope.

[Rerem115]

A favored build of mine will always be mounted kobolds guaranteeing that they will always have Pack Tactics...though I'll be the first to admit, dirty-fighting half-pints with war-dogs - or wolves, for even more Pack Tactics - are not the most 'knightly' image.

[jojo]

Mounted Combat is not particularly common in 5E. Building for it as a result is incredibly unlikely to actually benefit you.

[Chronos]

Quoth TVtyrant:

If there is any one major irritant it is that there are no huge or gargantuan Find Greater Steed mounts, so you only can get advantage on medium targets unless you want to start buying creatures to tame.
...Huh, rhinos are only Large now, sure enough.

[Tanarii]

Part of the problem is 5e isn't a reality emulator when it comes to which weapons you can use while mounted. And PAM's butt-end attack just makes that worse, and is often a problem even without being mounted.

Wielding a (possibly modified) Glaive should be possible mounted. Halberd, not so much. But making a butt-end strike? Probably not while moving.

Shield and Spear should be possible mounted. But making a butt-end strike? That ones ridiculous even when you're not mounted.

If it were a traded off of the extra movement from being mounted vs what weapon could be wielded, or the capability to utilize PAM's features, it'd be a fairer comparison.

[Melphizard]

The rules for mounted combat are weird and the amount of ways your mount can die is so cruel that Arkhan the Cruel looks like Arkhan the Benevolent. The greatest mount is a moon druid, followed by a Steel Defender if your DM is chill with letting it act as such, followed by Find greater steed, followed by any magical item with flight, such as a broom of flying.

Mounted combat pros vs cons -

Pros:
1. Advantage to hit enemies smaller than your mount
2. Zoom around the battlefield
3. Hit / Run
4a. Get to name an animal and get attached to it just as Sylvanus intended
4b. Sacrifice animals to Malar frequently

Cons:
1. If an enemy looks at it and you don't have the Mounted Combatant feat, it will explode.
2. If an enemy looks at it and you have the Mounted Combatant feat, prepare to get hit with a fireball.
3. Congrats, your horse made the fireball save and took no damage, but what about Cone of Cold or Circle of Death?
4. If it dies, you fall prone or from the sky (if flying mount like pegasus).
5. Barding is expensive at early levels
6. Eventually most things you fight will be larger than a horse
7. Doors
8. Buildings not made for horses


As for lances, they are super cool until your mount dies and you need two hands. Tbh you're better off going sword/board or PAM when using a mount and just try your damn hardest to find cover with each movement of your horse. The rules for mounted combat need to be altered and mounts need to have more defensive layers IMO. That said, every archer is a mongolian horse archer since there's no penalty trying to use a weapon of any type from atop horseback with no hands grabbing this mount you probably don't know how to ride.


Mount store tier list!
1. Triceratops (Chult; 500 gp; Free shipping if you use Death Curse Prime; Can technically survive a meteor storm though it will go to 0 hp)
2. Elephant (200 gp; how did you even find one of these in Icewind Dale; tanky)
3. Anklyosaurus (Chult; 250 gp; Free shipping if you use Death Curse Prime; how'd you even convince your DM)
4. Warhorse (400 gp; You could have gotten 2 elephants instead; will die in the first encounter; looks noble)
5. Mastiff (25 gp; will die if stared at; buy a pack of them since you'll be going through them like toilet paper)
6. Camel (50 gp; seriously how did you get this thing to Icewind Dale; middle man between draft horse and riding horse)
7. Horse, Draft (50 gp; has 6 more seconds of life compared to a riding horse)
8. Horse, Riding (75 gp; fast movement, swift death)
9. Pony (30 gp; your a halfling; the word Rumblebelly means something to you)
10. Hadrosaurus (100 gp; Free shipping if you use Death Curse Prime; just a more expensive horse)
11. Everything else I didn't mention

[Tvtyrant]

...Huh, rhinos are only Large now, sure enough.

To be fair to Wizards, they are in a difficult middle ground. A shire draft horse is the upper end of large at over a ton and taller at the shoulder then a human. A white rhino is the same height but 11 feet long and 5,000 pounds. A black rhino is as heavy as the draft horse but shorter and longer.

By contrast the quintessential huge animal is an elephant, which is between 6,000 and 13,000 lbs. They are almost twice as tall as the draft horse and up to 16 feet long.

So the largest horse is the size of the smallest rhino, while the smallest elephant is much bigger then the largest rhino.

The non-draft horse horse is already at the top end of large, a brown bear is probably more normal at 500 lbs, 4 by 7 feet. So a rhino is comfortably too large for Large and too small for huge.

[diplomancer]

...Huh, rhinos are only Large now, sure enough.

There's the Giant Elk

[f5anor]

PAM is certainly very good, to be sure, but there are some potential mitigating elements you may wish to consider:

First, the main nice thing about a mount isn't the lance's damage die, it's keeping the mount alive (for its precious mobility) and giving you Advantage. Paladins like being in melee, but trudge along at a glacial 30 feet of movement... and if your mount being dead *ever* leads to being stuck out of melee, that cuts out a lot (or potentially all) of PAM's theoretical lead.

Likewise, that Advantage is getting you more hits and crits, and unlike PAM it's giving you those extra hits without any extra action economy investment. Unfortunately it's limited to just creatures smaller than your mount, so the mileage certainly varies.


I would like to add here, that another benefit of "Find Steed" is action economy. The steed as an intelligent independent mount fully controlled by the Paladin by commands, will contribute its actions and special powers (e.g. a Warhorses Trampling Charge) to the fight. This can be substantial, especially when benefiting from the "twinned spell" clause in "Find Steed" (e.g. the various "Smite" spells).

[f5anor]

I guess at the end of the day, the question is why I would take Mounted Combatant over another feat. As a paladin, I'd get the mount for free anyway, and the lance is a perfectly serviceable weapon, but depending on my feat choice (e.g. PAM, GWM) I might end up using a different weapon. I think Rhaegar14 is right that to make Mounted Combatant worth it, you have to find a way to really exploit that advantage. And from the math I've seen, paladin crit fishing builds are not optimal.

So maybe the answer is to skip Mounted Combatant and not really optimize for mounted combat at all. I can still ride a mount, and I can still wield a lance, but I wouldn't really have anything invested into those options. Instead I could take, say, HAM and Shield Master (assuming Vuman), or something.


I believe that purely from an optimization point of view, under the assumption that you cannot regularly use a mount due to lack of space (in dungeons, buildings and other places where combat almost invariably takes place), it is quite pointless to get a feat like Mounted Combatant. As a Paladin you get great benefits from a "found" steed anyway (extra attacks, extra smites, Trampling Charge), and your regular feats such as PAM will work perfectly on your Warhorse.

If you go for Mounted Combatant, I agree that GWM is a great way to get some benefit from the permanent Advantage the feat provides you. However, in this case you have already invested two feats, in a setup that very likely will only be rarely occurring (YMMV based on your campaign setup of course).

If you are not a Paladin and do not have access to Find Steed (Bards of course excluded), then this whole discussion makes even less sense since you cannot benefit from the action economy the spell enables.

Regarding your argument around a mounted archer movement, I can see how this would be attractive, however, again based on my own campaign experience, even disregarding the height requirements, I rarely see combat in spaces large enough, and with enough visibility to enable such great freedom of movement on a regular basis.

Given the above, I believe the most optimized way to use mounted combat in 5e is Find Steed, since it enables the Paladin to just conjure up the steed as needed for a quick power boost (assuming the terrain allows this), and if the steed dies (due to lack of Mounted Combatant) the loss is minimal.

[Segev]

One solution to the fragility of a mount is to give it sidekick levels. Warrior sidekicks are surprisingly beefy.

[LudicSavant]

It is perhaps worth noting Large steeds can move in areas sized for Medium creatures, they just take squeezing penalties that arguably aren’t big enough to make it a bad idea to keep the mount in the dungeon.

Attack rolls against a squeezing creature have advantage… unless they get redirected by Mounted Combatant. Dexterity saves have Disadvantage, but survivability vs dex effects is still good between aura and Mounted Combatant. Its speed is halved on squares it has to squeeze through, but a dashing mount is still significantly faster than a Paladin on foot.

And of course, you probably aren’t in 5 foot hallways all the time. You only take the squeezing penalties while in those squares, like difficult terrain.

All this together means that being in dungeons all the time may not necessarily be the “you just can’t use your mount” obstacle that some assume, even if your mount is Large.

There are of course still places they can’t fit… but those are places where *medium* creatures need to Squeeze. Or where social conventions preclude taking a mount with you. You kinda have to make a judgment call about how much that’ll be an issue at your table, similar to how you have to judge whether PAM will impact your loot.

[tokek]

One solution to the fragility of a mount is to give it sidekick levels. Warrior sidekicks are surprisingly beefy.

This is honestly one of the best uses of the sidekick rules in Tashas as it really fixes an area of the game where it struggles badly to fulfil some pretty standard fantasy ideas. The named noble steed is a huge fantasy trope and D&D sort of does it somewhere between badly and not at all which is a shame.

[Glorthindel]

Mounted combat really lost out in 5th ed; simplification of rules removed the lances purpose, and mounts got seriously hamstrung as part of the excessive paranoia about action economy.

I know it doesn't help as you're the player, but in my game I ruled lances counted as Heavy for the purpose of Feat interactions when used in a round the mount 'charged' the opponent, and offset that by ruling Spears and Pikes likewise counted as Heavy for the purpose of Feat interactions when used to attack as a held action against a 'charging' opponent.

*I know charging isn't a thing in 5th ed, but we use it to mean any "moving towards by more than 10ft and attacking"

[Pildion]

Honestly, with how easy it is for the mounts to die. The only time I've ever used one was with my Forest Gnome Ranger from Chult who got Sharpshooter\Mounted Combatant and rained down shortbow shots from 300' on his Pteranodon. =D

[f5anor]

It is perhaps worth noting Large steeds can move in areas sized for Medium creatures, they just take squeezing penalties that arguably aren’t big enough to make it a bad idea to keep the mount in the dungeon.

Attack rolls against a squeezing creature have advantage… unless they get redirected by Mounted Combatant. Dexterity saves have Disadvantage, but survivability vs dex effects is still good between aura and Mounted Combatant. Its speed is halved on squares it has to squeeze through, but a dashing mount is still significantly faster than a Paladin on foot.

And of course, you probably aren’t in 5 foot hallways all the time. You only take the squeezing penalties while in those squares, like difficult terrain.

All this together means that being in dungeons all the time may not necessarily be the “you just can’t use your mount” obstacle that some assume, even if your mount is Large.

There are of course still places they can’t fit… but those are places where *medium* creatures need to Squeeze. Or where social conventions preclude taking a mount with you. You kinda have to make a judgment call about how much that’ll be an issue at your table, similar to how you have to judge whether PAM will impact your loot.

Thanks, this is a good clarification, indeed this is an option.

Let me comment here that both in terms of optimization, and in terms of suspension of disbelief, I am not sure this option is workable for me.

A horse would be assumed to have about 1.5 m (4.9 feet, or almost 15 hands) height, an average human would have about a 50% ratio between his upper and lower body and I guess an average height of at least 1.80 m (5.9 feet) for a martial character.

So overall we are looking at roughly 2.5 m (8,2 feet) of height for the horse and rider combined. Bear in mind that this does not include any headroom, or space for mounting/dismounting, helmet height, etc.

I would assume that you would need at least 3 m (9,8 feet) of space in order to not continuously damage yourself while riding in a closed space.

Even if a passage that is 5 feet wide would be technically wide enough for a large creature to squeeze through, I doubt that such confined space would have a 10 feet high ceilings, let alone doorways.

Permanent disadvantage for you and advantage for your enemies is obviously not attractive, even if it would be partly negated by the advantage you get from Mounted Combatant.

[diplomancer]

I played a campaign once all the way to Paladin 20 with Mounted Combatant feat, here are my impressions:

1- most of the time, I could use my Steed; maybe because we were a small party, maybe because I had a good DM that rewarded my feat investment, there were very few times when I couldn't use my steed in combat; when it happened, it was more for social reasons ("no, you can't bring your horse here, I don't care how intelligent he is",) than for space reasons; the 5' corridors and rooms are very rare.

2- though it IS true that the Advantage from the feat was less and less relevant as the campaign advanced, the defensive bonuses of the feat were still great at keeping my mount alive, and, thus, my Paladin where he needed to be. By the end of it, I had a Pegasus, who has the best defenses and mobility but poor attack, and didn't even use any of the Action options for him for uncontrolled mounts, just Dash and Disengage mostly. The Paladin was good enough that just having him in the monster's face all the time was sufficient.

Also: as your opponents get bigger (which DOES happen, which is too bad for the Advantage), the rarer it becomes for you to be unable to use your steed. Size goes both ways, after all.

[Segev]

This is honestly one of the best uses of the sidekick rules in Tashas as it really fixes an area of the game where it struggles badly to fulfil some pretty standard fantasy ideas. The named noble steed is a huge fantasy trope and D&D sort of does it somewhere between badly and not at all which is a shame.

I can't take credit for the idea; the DM running the game I'm currently in surprised me when an allied NPC (my PC's wife, actually) got a mastiff mount and he applied the Warrior sidekick class to it, which took it from "stupidly fragile" for our level (8, at the time, IIRC) to being tankier than my monk (albeit not as hard to pin down and thus easier to actually target).

[Kurt Kurageous]

5e has not been the best for classic mounted combat.

Proficiency in land vehicles is limited. The military saddle offsets this somewhat, but the falling off chance is always there, and not at a 5% level. And as mentioned multiple times, the non-scaling low HP

The RL benefits of being mounted are almost entirely lost in 5e. Sure, you are mobile. So what? Flight is superior, even if it's only the 30' variety, because you are always out of melee range.

What made mounted combat worthwhile in RL was physics and psychology, psychology being the most important.

Physics: The rider effectively gained the mass of the mount behind their weapon, and the mount itself could move into the space of a much much lighter body with the ease of a 200 pound athlete knocking over a 20' pylon. This is the consequence of the stirrup.

Psychology: The height of the rider relative to those on the ground gives the rider superior situational awareness and a sense of personal control. The footman, in the presence of mounted enemies can often see but always hear the horses, and has no sense of control pressed on all sides by their comrades. When the horses charge a line, the rider's weapons produce fewer effects than the horse they ride. Bodies fall or are sent flying as they bounce off the chest of the horse. They fall onto their comrades or get trampled under the heavy hooves. Screams and cries of fear and pain fill the ears of the footmen. Chaos ensues, and it is up to the leaders of the footmen to reestablish order.

Absolutely none of this is reflected in RAW except in the very optional, inadequate, and seldom used morale rules.

[JLandan]

One solution to the fragility of a mount is to give it sidekick levels. Warrior sidekicks are surprisingly beefy.

Another solution that we play as a houserule: mounts get death saves same as PCs. More survivable but can spend a lot of time down. Like a Barbarian.

[LudicSavant]

Thanks, this is a good clarification, indeed this is an option.

Let me comment here that both in terms of optimization, and in terms of suspension of disbelief, I am not sure this option is workable for me.

I agree about it not being realistic. An awful lot of 5e mechanics make very little sense in that regard, including Aarakocra being able to fly in 5 foot corridors (don't they have *20 foot wingspans* in canon?), movement speeds in general (they just deleted "Run" from the game and didn't replace it with anything in 5e), and lifting weights in general (too low for big/strong creatures, too high for small/weak ones).

[Tanarii]

Psychology: The height of the rider relative to those on the ground gives the rider superior situational awareness and a sense of personal control. The footman, in the presence of mounted enemies can often see but always hear the horses, and has no sense of control pressed on all sides by their comrades. When the horses charge a line, the rider's weapons produce fewer effects than the horse they ride. Bodies fall or are sent flying as they bounce off the chest of the horse. They fall onto their comrades or get trampled under the heavy hooves. Screams and cries of fear and pain fill the ears of the footmen. Chaos ensues, and it is up to the leaders of the footmen to reestablish order.
Horsemen almost never charged into heavy infantry directly, certainly not trying to overrun them. Even armored knights with armored mounts preferred a slashing attack to a shock charge. It's far too dangerous to a very valuable horse to try to overrun heavy infantry with a horse, and you end up surrounded by heavily armored and armed enemies.

Running down routed enemies not in good order, or loose formation archers with almost no armor and hand weapons? Sure. 'Footman' in formation? Very rare. The Rohirrim style charge in LoTR for example is a Hollywood myth.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Rohirrim style charge in LoTR for example is a Hollywood myth.
Any comment on the heavy cavalry charge (https://youtu.be/iDVuQi4gdtk) in Braveheart? :smallwink:
The details of that movie's battle of Stirling had no bridge, and quite a few of the details seem to resemble the Battle of Bannockburn quite a bit, to include the Scots cavalry flanking and disrupting English bowmen ...

[Kurt Kurageous]

Horsemen almost never charged into heavy infantry directly, certainly not trying to overrun them. Even armored knights with armored mounts preferred a slashing attack to a shock charge. It's far too dangerous to a very valuable horse to try to overrun heavy infantry with a horse, and you end up surrounded by heavily armored and armed enemies.

Running down routed enemies not in good order, or loose formation archers with almost no armor and hand weapons? Sure. 'Footman' in formation? Very rare. The Rohirrim style charge in LoTR for example is a Hollywood myth.

I definitely agree that running into an armored infantry unit is a bad idea. The armor is expensive, and unless it's a militia, the men in that formation are not all rookies if their lord gave them that armor.

Likewise for the formation of horse. They are even more expensive. A commander should never expose them to pointless risks (like breaking through a main line of resistance). Instead the horse is tasked with exploiting an existing breach/situation or simply flank and appear in the enemy's rear. None of this is 5e D&D, and I'm not sure it ever was.

I am trying to make the often made point that 5e is not a good simulation of nonmagical combats.

Regarding Braveheart, it looks like three ranks of horse against a very dense formation at least ten deep. The commander is counting on the psychological impact which the director implies. His opponent counters with inspired leadership of a force fighting to defend their home.

The clash was lost before it began, improvised pikes notwithstanding. The attacking commander had not read Sun Tsu.

[KorvinStarmast]

Regarding Braveheart, it looks like three ranks of horse against a very dense formation at least ten deep. The commander is counting on the psychological impact which the director implies. His opponent counters with inspired leadership of a force fighting to defend their home. The moral is to the physical as three is to one. ~ Attributed to Bonaparte, although it seems to be a bit of a misquote (https://militaryhistorynow.com/2014/08/20/the-quotable-bonaparte-nine-of-napoleons-best-known-remarks/). “In war, three-quarters turns on personal character and relations; the balance of manpower and materials counts only for the remaining quarter.” Variant: “In war, moral power is to physical as three parts out of four.” (a few more things he never said are here (https://shannonselin.com/2014/07/10-things-napoleon-never-said/))

The clash was lost before it began, improvised pikes notwithstanding. The attacking commander had not read Sun Tsu. To underestimate the enemy is to sow the first seed in the field of defeat That one's actually mine. We had an impromptu contest at staff college to come up with our own "SunTzu-isms" after an Army major ridiculed Sun Tzu / Art of War as "military theory on bumper stickers". A guy who spoke Chinese (FAO) and who had read a Chinese copy of the text of course schooled him forthwith ... but ... we all got the idea into our heads (too many field grade officers in one room combined with too much caffeine) to have a bumper sticker contest.
I placed third out of seventeen.
The winner was, of course, someone who shamelessly stole from a 70's era Bruce Lee film.
"Always expect the unexpected!"

[Tanarii]

I am trying to make the often made point that 5e is not a good simulation of nonmagical combats.

Regarding Braveheart, it looks like three ranks of horse against a very dense formation at least ten deep. The commander is counting on the psychological impact which the director implies. His opponent counters with inspired leadership of a force fighting to defend their home.
Agreed on the first point, and yes a charge of horse bearing down on them had huge psychological impact on footmen.

[Hytheter]

Agreed on the first point, and yes a charge of horse bearing down on them had huge psychological impact on footmen.

The effects of various events on one's morale are not well-modelled in general in the game. Though I'm not sure how it could be done in a way that anyone would like; it's probably not worth the trouble of implementing.

[Greywander]

You know, the simplest change to Mounted Combatant that would actually make a lot of sense is to let it allow you to do the -5/+10 thing, but with lances specifically (and being mounted isn't required, but how often do you use a lance on foot?). Otherwise, I might do something a bit more unique, like a charge attack (perhaps similar to the Charger feat), where once per turn you can deal extra damage if you move at least X feet in a straight line right before attacking. Perhaps this latter bonus could extend to other melee weapons, but the bonus is enhanced for lances specifically.

I also wonder what the options are for magic lances. Obviously as a paladin we'd want to get our hands on a Holy Avenger, and if we managed to do so then we'd need a lance of comparable power or else we might never use a lance again. (Sidenote: If you have multiple weapons that require attunement, they should share a single attunement slot, since you're not going to use more than one weapon at a time except on TWF builds, which are already suboptimal. The limited attunement slots heavily disincentivizes you from attuning to more than one weapon, and instead to go for other items that you can actually use at the same time as each other. A Cloak of Displacement or even a Ring of Protection is much better than a weapon you're not using at the moment.)

[Tanarii]

The effects of various events on one's morale are not well-modelled in general in the game. Though I'm not sure how it could be done in a way that anyone would like; it's probably not worth the trouble of implementing.
D&D used to have a morale system, and it worked fine. Generally speaking, the goal of PCs was to break the enemy morale, not kill them all. And enemies with perfect morale (like undead) were scary, because they would just keep fighting.

I gather it got tossed because the idea was DMs should determine if the enemy breaks, not dice. Bad change IMO, especially since most DMs don't seem to have the enemy break, or if they do they act like players and wait until it's too late and TPK (Monster Edition!) results anyway.

[Segev]

I gather it got tossed because the idea was DMs should determine if the enemy breaks, not dice. Bad change IMO, especially since most DMs don't seem to have the enemy break, or if they do they act like players and wait until it's too late and TPK (Monster Edition!) results anyway.

Which is also a pity because a more robust morale system that developed the way other subsystems did over the editions could have fit neatly into fear effects, making them richer.

[Tanarii]

Which is also a pity because a more robust morale system that developed the way other subsystems did over the editions could have fit neatly into fear effects, making them richer.
Went the way of the dodo along with procedural generated content (wandering monsters and exploration), strict time keeping, and a host of other concepts. /grognardgrognard :smallamused:

[Greywander]

I'm not familiar with those subsystems, as I was late getting into D&D, but I wouldn't be surprised if those subsystems were unwieldy. It's a shame they disappeared entirely, but they may very well have needed to be rebuilt from scratch. Old TTRPGs did some pretty crazy things with their rules. I am aware of the meme that is the 3.x grapple rules, for example. (THAC0, on the other hand, is overstated; it's literally the same as the 5e attack roll, just presented differently.) Oddly enough, these types of obtuse rules might actually be more viable now with the use of some technological assistance.

[sambojin]

#1 Find a Moon Druid buddy. This is the best option. They also have Enlarge/Reduce on their spell list now, so whatever you want them to turn into, you can probably ride it. Find a magic saddle, so it can resize to whatever (it's one of those things all druids want anyway). Frilled Deathspitters, Deinonychus, Female Steeders, Giant Constrictor Snakes, whatever, they're all potentially a mount.
They also have Summon Beast by lvl3, and Conjure Animals/ Summon Fey by lvl5, so when they're a "regular" large sized beast being ridden by a vainglorious Paladin, they don't feel left out on their gaming turn. They will love having "19+AC" wildshape, since all attacks can be directed at you with Mounted Combatant. Use your Find Steed slot for an extra smite, or just have an extra semi-permanent summon. Warhorses are quite good to just have around as an extra charge proner and hit harder than you'd think if both their attacks land, or an Elk, and ask for a wolf for size concerns sometimes too. Pretty easy to have a Huge or Gargantuan mount, so MC advantage is always on.

#2 Take a level of War Cleric. You get some nice spells (Bless, Shield of Faith and Divine Favour mostly), it actually speeds up your spell slot progression, and if you find a nice weapon, you can still get the odd bonus action attack even without PAM. Also gives you the option of taking a 2nd lvl in War, to use your channel divinity any time you *really* want your smites to land. Probably take the War lvls after pally 5-7, depending on subclass. Bless you, bless your horse, and dodge those fireballs all day long with your aura making it silly-hard to fail.

#3 Take a lvl of Wizard. You now have the Shield spell. Slightly more slots, and masses more AC when needed too. Horsies aren't squishy when they can't can't be hit by regular attacks, because all attacks hit you, and you can't be hit. Also has the "maybe a 2nd lvl" thing going for it, for all kinds of optional extras. Like the druid, familiars are available, and you get really good ritual casting as well, so you'll feel pretty damn magical regardless of slot-count for utility stuff.

#4 Take PAM. PAM is very good. Take it even with mounted combatant, for when you're not mounted. You're a Paladin. You might have a *best* weapon, but you should have a few *other* weapons as well. And when PAM can turn a stick into a martial frenzy, it's handy to have.

[BW022]

Lances and Find Steed - How good is mounted combat really?


I've tried a few mounted combat builds in 5e and seen some attempts as players. Honestly, they don't work well.


Mounts can't be taken to most places in 5e. Most adventures take place indoors -- caves, dungeons, cities, sewers, castles, narrow doors, etc. Even outdoors often has cliffs, ships, etc.
Even outdoors, few DMs have large battlemap areas. Rarely do even outdoor encounters run more than 100x100 feet.
Mounted combat doesn't "play well" with other players. In a typical party of say four or five PCs, you typically don't have the chance to ride off and make use any use of your mobility or freedom. If you are a paladin, the rogue needs a flanking buddy, the wizard needs someone to block, and people often need you next to them for lay on hands or buff spells.
Mounts typically have terrible hit points. By 5th-level they are often such a liability in combat that they aren't worth it. Small characters riding a dog or hyena typically have their mounts dead quickly. Large mounts are just so hard to transport or use inside dungeons.


This isn't like the paladin, druid, or even ranger mounts of 3.5e. At best, I'd say in an outdoor based, low-level campaign where you are solo or the entire party had mounts, maybe. In a general campaign or typical adventure, most players are going to get frustrated that they rarely get to use them effectively, they are often more of a hinderance, and they aren't that effective even in cases where you get to use them. In general, not much fun.

[Chronos]

Eh, the 3rd edition grapple rules weren't so bad. To someone who cut their teeth on the 2nd edition unarmed combat rules, the 3rd edition grapple rules were nothing.

And from what I remember, 2nd edition had clear rules for how to make a morale check, and what the consequences were for failing one, but they didn't have clear rules for when exactly a morale check was appropriate, just some vague guidelines. Like, even just casting a spell could cause a morale check... maybe. Or maybe not, if the enemy included spellcasters, too. Or even just had prior exposure to spellcasters. Or were too dumb to understand that it was a spell.

[Easy e]

Horsemen almost never charged into heavy infantry directly, certainly not trying to overrun them. Even armored knights with armored mounts preferred a slashing attack to a shock charge. It's far too dangerous to a very valuable horse to try to overrun heavy infantry with a horse, and you end up surrounded by heavily armored and armed enemies.


Sure, but cavalry charges were very effective against non-heavy infantry.

For some reason, eyewitness and period writers rarely spent much time talking about light infantry forces much. Their focus was always on the heavies. That leads to a huge bias as many armies the bulk of them were light infantry, missile troops, and skirmish forces.

As you point out, they were especially good at chasing down fleeing foes and converting a victory into a rout.

[KorvinStarmast]

The effects of various events on one's morale are not well-modelled in general in the game. I still use the 2d6 system from OD&D for morale checks. (Morale values from chainmail are easily adapted to any monsters, specifically any kind of humanoid, although any monster that is immune to being frightened I don't check for. A pack of wolves if they get a fight back may turn tail and flee.

D&D used to have a morale system, and it worked fine. Generally speaking, the goal of PCs was to break the enemy morale, not kill them all. And enemies with perfect morale (like undead) were scary, because they would just keep fighting. +10.

I gather it got tossed because the idea was DMs should determine if the enemy breaks, not dice. Bad change IMO, especially since most DMs don't seem to have the enemy break, or if they do they act like players and wait until it's too late and TPK (Monster Edition!) results anyway. Once again the "fix what isn't broken" temptation is so great. :smalltongue:
Which is also a pity because a more robust morale system that developed the way other subsystems did over the editions could have fit neatly into fear effects, making them richer. Concur.

Went the way of the dodo along with procedural generated content (wandering monsters and exploration), strict time keeping, and a host of other concepts. /grognardgrognard :smallamused: I keep a calendar.

[Witty Username]

So is this a lance question or a mounted combat question?
If lance then characters can be effective, you lose out on options like GWM and PAM but you have mobility, a free bonus action, and reach.
For Paladin specifically , this means bonus action spells and effects, wrathful smite, spiritual weapon, hunter's mark, aura of vitality, healing word things like that. I would personally recommend Conquest paladin instead of devotion but that is a personal preference. This works reasonably well without any feats so it can free up race options if you don't want custom lineage or variant human (or have other considerations in feats). Reach allows you to attack without entering your opponents reach, allowing the mount to take the dash action every turn, giving you mobility comparable to a monk.

As for mounted combat, mounted combat and PAM are not mutually exclusive. Spear, Shield and horse, you delay the mounted combatant but you don't need i. This is higher risk because you lose out on reach, meaning you are relying on your mount to disengage. Note that this is a disadvantage compared to lance, not unmounted as your mobility solution is nonexistent with unmounted PAM.

Generally speaking, if you can mount, use a mount. There is little reason to not use a mount if it is possible in your environment.

Mounted Combatant is a reasonable feat, I would say the dex save option is limited, as most mount's saves won't be that great(using find steed as a reference warhorse has the highest HP at 19 meaning even half damage from a dex save is going to be problematic, the save needs to be a success for meaningful survival improvement). It will be a good source of advantage against many opponents, I would say it is not strictly necessary though. Worth mentioning is in the context of Paladin it is great because of Aura of Protection giving your mount a potential + 5 to dex saves.