Is RAW mounted combat as entirely broken as it looks

[Skrum]

Broken as in non-functional, in this case.

There's no rules for when the mount gets to act (warhorses for instance have an attack that would be good in the lower levels), how it is controlled, or anything.

Further, the intelligent mount rules seem to make Find Steed entirely useless. It creates an intelligent mount, and RAW, intelligent mounts get their own initiative count. Soooo.....your mount takes its own actions either before or after you, and there's no RAW way to control what it does. Even if it was your friend, there's no delay initiative in 5e, meaning either you or the mount will be acting only with readied actions.

Has there been any errata or further ruling on mounted combat? I've seen several interesting builds that use a mount, but they seem to be making some assumptions about how mounts work that isn't supported by RAW.

[BW022]

Rules are pretty clear.

"While you're mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.

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.

An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.

In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you're on it, the attacker can target you or the mount." (SRD)


Broken as in non-functional, in this case.
It is perfectly functional. You may not like it's implications, but it's clear and functional.



There's no rules for when the mount gets to act (warhorses for instance have an attack that would be good in the lower levels), how it is controlled, or anything.


It is spelled out clearly. If you are controlling it, it does on your initiative and can only dash, disengage, or dodge as actions. It can't attack. If you are not controlling it, it goes on its initiative, and does whatever the DM rules.



Further, the intelligent mount rules seem to make Find Steed entirely useless. It creates an intelligent mount, and RAW, intelligent mounts get their own initiative count. Soooo.....your mount takes its own actions either before or after you, and there's no RAW way to control what it does. Even if it was your friend, there's no delay initiative in 5e, meaning either you or the mount will be acting only with readied actions.


It is intelligent (6), speaks a language of your choice, and is loyal. You can just ask it to do something. "Please charge those goblins and hoof them." Yes, you have to coordinate actions (often using readying), but that is the same as any group. If you want to charge forward AFTER he wizard casts fireball, you have to ready.



Has there been any errata or further ruling on mounted combat? I've seen several interesting builds that use a mount, but they seem to be making some assumptions about how mounts work that isn't supported by RAW.

No need. The rules say what the rules say. The fact someone makes build using expecting the rules to work based on assumptions doesn't mean you change the rules. Change the build. You can't attack while controlling and non-intelligent mount. You can't act on the same initiative with an intelligent mount. Simple. Build based on that. Or have your DM change the rules -- and suffer the consequences. I'd love to make a build which relies on having multiple concentration spells up at the same time, that doesn't mean a DM should let it.

[Evaar]

Also worth noting Find Greater Steed specifies you control the mount in combat, making it an exception to the “intelligent creatures act independently” rule. Find Steed omits that clause but it’s a pretty straightforward houserule to add it in if that’s how you’d rather it work.

[Skrum]

So using an non-intelligent mount, a paladin can freely control the mount on their turn, allowing for things like "moving up to a group of enemies and attacking."

But, using the Find Steed spell (or some other intelligent mount), mounted combat becomes -
The mount beats your initiative
- The mount will move before you. The DM might control the mount, or maybe you as the player do, but either way, the mount will take it's turn before you. If it has at attack, it can use it
- If the target you are moving adjacent to acts after your mount but before you, they can simply move away from you. You'd get an opportunity attack, assuming you still have your reaction and want to spend it
- If there's still someone adjacent/within range when your initiative comes around, you can attack

You beat your mount's initiative
- You must declare what action you will take; for example, when my mount moves adjacent to X enemy, I will attack them
- Your reaction is used to do this
- When your mount gets to act, it can now move adjacent to the enemy you readied your action against (with some haziness on who gets to control the mount, as above).

I don't have a particular question over whether this is RAW. My opinion, this is an entirely non-functional ruleset. My question is whether it's been fixed.

[LudicSavant]

Here's a question for consideration: What happens to the non-intelligent mount's initiative when the rider mounts and/or dismounts it mid-combat?

Another question for consideration: When do you decide if you are controlling the mount or not? Can you stop controlling a mount? Start again?

[PhoenixPhyre]

So using an non-intelligent mount, a paladin can freely control the mount on their turn, allowing for things like "moving up to a group of enemies and attacking."

But, using the Find Steed spell (or some other intelligent mount), mounted combat becomes -
The mount beats your initiative
- The mount will move before you. The DM might control the mount, or maybe you as the player do, but either way, the mount will take it's turn before you. If it has at attack, it can use it
- If the target you are moving adjacent to acts after your mount but before you, they can simply move away from you. You'd get an opportunity attack, assuming you still have your reaction and want to spend it
- If there's still someone adjacent/within range when your initiative comes around, you can attack

You beat your mount's initiative
- You must declare what action you will take; for example, when my mount moves adjacent to X enemy, I will attack them
- Your reaction is used to do this
- When your mount gets to act, it can now move adjacent to the enemy you readied your action against (with some haziness on who gets to control the mount, as above).

I don't have a particular question over whether this is RAW. My opinion, this is an entirely non-functional ruleset. My question is whether it's been fixed.

I've always thought that intelligent mounts can act independently, not must do so. You just can't have both at the same time. You have to choose "do you control it (and can act without Readying) or do you let it act (and get its attacks and such) but have to Ready/coordinate".

[Skrum]

I've always thought that intelligent mounts can act independently, not must do so. You just can't have both at the same time. You have to choose "do you control it (and can act without Readying) or do you let it act (and get its attacks and such) but have to Ready/coordinate".

I like this interpretation, but I don't think it's RAW

"While you're mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently."

This doesn't leave room for choice, unfortunately.

[tiornys]

Since the mounted combat rules are freely available on D&D Beyond, let's take a look:


While you’re mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.

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.

An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.

In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
First, I'll point out that a controlled mount has its initiative change to match yours; if you dismount it then it stays on the same initiative that you have.

I don't think there's much room to argue that you can control an intelligent creature. It's a flat statement that "Intelligent creatures ... act independently." However, I do think you can argue that even an unusually intelligent horse (or similar) from Find Steed does not count as "intelligent" in the same way that a dragon is intelligent. So basically this will come down to DM ruling.

[Skrum]

OK what does a controlled mount's initiative "changed to match yours" mean? Does it get to use its move and action before you, or after?

Can I ride my mount up to someone and attack them or not? Lol how the heck did these rules ever get published like this

[tiornys]

OK what does a controlled mount's initiative "changed to match yours" mean? Does it get to use its move and action before you, or after?

Can I ride my mount up to someone and attack them or not? Lol how the heck did these rules ever get published like this
As long as you're mounted, yes you can ride up to someone and attack them because the mounted combat rules explicitly say you can. If you dismount, I'm not sure that there's a RAW method for determining which of you goes first (edit: or if you just keep having simultaneous turns); that probably falls to DM fiat again.

[Skrum]

As long as you're mounted, yes you can ride up to someone and attack them because the mounted combat rules explicitly say you can. If you dismount, I'm not sure that there's a RAW method for determining which of you goes first (edit: or if you just keep having simultaneous turns); that probably falls to DM fiat again.

Umm what? Where does it say that? Not being snippy, I'm genuinely curious.

[Gurgeh]

It's quoted in the second post of the thread. I'll re-quote it again for clarity:

"While you're mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.

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.

An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.

In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you're on it, the attacker can target you or the mount." (SRD)

[Skrum]

Sorry, I'm just taking as RAW a POV as possible. So no, it doesn't say you can do that. It just says a controlled mount's initiative changes to match yours - but it gives no further guidance as to what that means.

Normally, if two people get the same initiative, the tie is either broken with using the creature's Dex scores, or their turns are randomized round to round. I.e., *someone* has to act "first"

Do you get to decide if the mount acts immediately before or after you? Basically, can I ride up and attack on one turn, then attack and ride away on the next?

[Willowhelm]

For what they cover the rules are clear. For all the edge cases and areas they don’t cover… they’re broken.

https://youtu.be/o3EBXS54skw

Personally I just have the player control them as desired, same initiative, interchangeable action order and they can have their full abilities.

Way less to think about and my players aren’t going to try and abuse it in any way.

[LudicSavant]

For what they cover the rules are clear. For all the edge cases and areas they don’t cover… they’re broken.

The problem is that the "edge cases" aren't exactly obscure. They're things like "what happens if you get on or off of a mount in combat?"

[Willowhelm]

The problem is that the "edge cases" aren't exactly obscure. They're things like "what happens if you get on or off of a mount in combat?"

I agree! Even worse…Get off and then back on in the same turn? Or ready movement to do so? Or mount at the back and dismount at the front? Or just drop the reins at the end of your turn (so the mount can act uncontrolled) but pick them up again at the start of your next turn… it’s endless. And what even counts as appropriate anatomy for riding?!

Broken.

[LudicSavant]

I agree! Even worse…Get off and then back on in the same turn? Or ready movement to do so? Or mount at the back and dismount at the front? Or just drop the reins at the end of your turn (so the mount can act uncontrolled) but pick them up again at the start of your next turn… it’s endless. And what even counts as appropriate anatomy for riding?!

Broken.

I mean, what counts as appropriate anatomy for riding seems like the sort of thing that can comfortably be left to DM judgment. But the "what the hell happens to initiative" stuff? Yeah, that's messy as @#$%.

[cookieface]

I mean, what counts as appropriate anatomy for riding seems like the sort of thing that can comfortably be left to DM judgment. But the "what the hell happens to initiative" stuff? Yeah, that's messy as @#$%.

Seems kinda straightforward. The fact that the RAW states a mount can act on the turn you mount it implies that they act *during* your turn.

If you get off, they don't. Break the new initiative tie based on DEX, state "the mount has already dashed/dodged/disengaged so it will not act again until next round, that is it acts before the PC now", whatever the DM wants to do.

RAW is strangely worded but straightforward. RAI seems obvious.

A mount summoned via Find Steed (ie INT 6) =/= "an intelligent mount". Where else in the game would you ever consider INT 6 to be intelligent?

Long story short, a mount allows you some extra movement speed (typically), an extra action usable for Dodge/Dash/Disengage, and another target for baddies to hit instead of you. The cost is, well, the cost (either GP or spell slots), the lost movement mounting and dismounting, potential issues controlling the mount, and the risk of falling off your mount and landing prone. These costs can be mitigated with Find Steed or the Mounted Combatant feat.

Nothing broken about it, rules- or balance-wise.

[Gurgeh]

Int 6 is entirely possible for a PC by the standard character generation rules. If you are offering a simple dichotomy of "intelligent" and "not intelligent" then it is 100% on the "intelligent" side.

[Willowhelm]

Seems kinda straightforward. The fact that the RAW states a mount can act on the turn you mount it implies that they act *during* your turn.


So let’s say it had an initiative higher than mine. It does it’s turn. Then I mount it and control it on my turn. Then I dismount on my turn and it loses the tie and it now has initiative after me…

Three turns a round? One? I don’t get to control it because it moved?

Your common sense interpretations are fine. The rules are not.

[cookieface]

Int 6 is entirely possible for a PC by the standard character generation rules. If you are offering a simple dichotomy of "intelligent" and "not intelligent" then it is 100% on the "intelligent" side.

By that logic a Giant Dragonfly (INT 3) is intelligent, because a PC can possibly have that Intelligence score.

The example of "an intelligent mount" is a dragon. Unless we're talking about the unusually unintelligent white dragons, that means minimum INT score of about 14 or so.

[cookieface]

So let’s say it had an initiative higher than mine. It does it’s turn. Then I mount it and control it on my turn. Then I dismount on my turn and it loses the tie and it now has initiative after me…

Three turns a round? One? I don’t get to control it because it moved?

Your common sense interpretations are fine. The rules are not.

Yeah, I suppose it would in that case. It would be a weird DM interpretation, but it wouldn't be completely against RAW.

The alternative is that the rules state either (a) a mount doesn't take actions on your turn if it has already taken actions, or (b) a laundry list of ways to determine action order after a player has dismounted.

In the case of (a) it makes mounted combat silly in any combat where the mount rolls higher than the player. That's no fun for anyone with a mounted combat focused build. In the case of (b) they'd overcomplicate the rules with minimal benefit. Even fewer tables would use them than they do now if they got more complicated.

This is a TTRPG with a GM actively interpreting the ruleset, not a computer program that necessitates comprehensive if-then rulesets. This is, thankfully, an area where the rules went light on crunch to maximize how sensible they are at the table.

[Gurgeh]

By that logic a Giant Dragonfly (INT 3) is intelligent, because a PC can possibly have that Intelligence score.

The example of "an intelligent mount" is a dragon. Unless we're talking about the unusually unintelligent white dragons, that means minimum INT score of about 14 or so.
I'm pretty sure the monster you're quoting is homebrew, so perhaps that's not a good example; while there *are* beasts with 3 or more intelligence, they're rare and very few of them are suited to acting as a mount (they're mostly apes, and some of the other big outliers, such as giant eagles, are creatures that have a very strong tradition of being portrayed as intelligent and even capable of speech in fantasy fiction).

At the end of the day, the rule falls into 5e's "natural language" trap - but I'd generally say that using 3 or higher as a rule of thumb to qualify as "intelligent" (it's the RAW threshold for "humanlike intelligence" in 3.5, for what it's worth). I would definitely rule a unicorn or a pegasus as "intelligent", and they're 10 and 11 respectively.

[Skrum]

Yeah, I suppose it would in that case. It would be a weird DM interpretation, but it wouldn't be completely against RAW.

The alternative is that the rules state either (a) a mount doesn't take actions on your turn if it has already taken actions, or (b) a laundry list of ways to determine action order after a player has dismounted.

In the case of (a) it makes mounted combat silly in any combat where the mount rolls higher than the player. That's no fun for anyone with a mounted combat focused build. In the case of (b) they'd overcomplicate the rules with minimal benefit. Even fewer tables would use them than they do now if they got more complicated.

This is a TTRPG with a GM actively interpreting the ruleset, not a computer program that necessitates comprehensive if-then rulesets. This is, thankfully, an area where the rules went light on crunch to maximize how sensible they are at the table.

I am genuinely flummoxed as to how people are reading the rules as written and coming away with a confident interpretation of what the rules mean in practice. For a controlled mount, does it act before you? After you? Do you get to choose round to round? Do you literally control your mount in the most complete way possible, allowing you do to things like break up "your movement" (move, attack, move again, etc.). The rules say nothing about any of this, or even what it means to act at the same time - something that's not allowed in any other part of the game. And it gets even weirder with intelligent mounts, particularly when Find Steed gives an intelligent mount.

I could write up a common sense, RAI (I think) set in like 5 minutes. But it wouldn't have a ton to do with RAW.

[cookieface]

I'm pretty sure the monster you're quoting is homebrew, so perhaps that's not a good example; while there *are* beasts with 3 or more intelligence, they're rare and very few of them are suited to acting as a mount (they're mostly apes).

At the end of the day, the rule falls into 5e's "natural language" trap - but I'd generally say that using 3 or higher as a rule of thumb to qualify as "intelligent" (it's the RAW threshold for "humanlike intelligence" in 3.5, for what it's worth). I would definitely rule a unicorn or a pegasus as "intelligent", and they're 10 and 11 respectively.

They are from Wild Beyond the Witchlight.

I would feel okay setting the barrier around INT 8. That's the lowest score a PC can have via PB or SA so seems fitting.

[Gurgeh]

They are from Wild Beyond the Witchlight.

I would feel okay setting the barrier around INT 8. That's the lowest score a PC can have via PB or SA so seems fitting.
VGTM Orcs can go as low as 6 via these means, but the correct choice is to put them into the bin and use the rules from Eberron or Monsters of the Multiverse instead.

[Telok]

Looks like if you have a mount with higher dex than you its possible to give it two turns a round.

You mount & control using half your movement, you act and mount gets the move + nonviolent option, you dismount using hslf your movement & lose control.
Turn rolls back around, you & mount have the same init but it has higher dex so it goes first & is not a controlled mount, then you go & mount, it gets to move & stuff while you act, you dismount again.

As long as the mount doesn't move away on its turn it gets the regular move & attacks, you mount & it gets the move & dodge/dash. Sounds pretty good as long as it ends its move adjacent to you.

[cookieface]

I am genuinely flummoxed as to how people are reading the rules as written and coming away with a confident interpretation of what the rules mean in practice. For a controlled mount, does it act before you? After you? Do you get to choose round to round? Do you literally control your mount in the most complete way possible, allowing you do to things like break up "your movement" (move, attack, move again, etc.). The rules say nothing about any of this, or even what it means to act at the same time - something that's not allowed in any other part of the game. And it gets even weirder with intelligent mounts, particularly when Find Steed gives an intelligent mount.

I could write up a common sense, RAI (I think) set in like 5 minutes. But it wouldn't have a ton to do with RAW.

In the RAW it literally says a mount acts *on the turn* you mount it. By RAW, it acts on the player's turn. That's straightforward.

And again, even if you think INT 6 is enough to qualify as "an intelligent mount", Find Steed has more language about how the creature operates. It literally has the words "Your steed serves you as a mount" in the text of the spell.

[cookieface]

Looks like if you have a mount with higher dex than you its possible to give it two turns a round.

You mount & control using half your movement, you act and mount gets the move + nonviolent option, you dismount using hslf your movement & lose control.
Turn rolls back around, you & mount have the same init but it has higher dex so it goes first & is not a controlled mount, then you go & mount, it gets to move & stuff while you act, you dismount again.

As long as the mount doesn't move away on its turn it gets the regular move & attacks, you mount & it gets the move & dodge/dash. Sounds pretty good as long as it ends its move adjacent to you.

Stuff like this is why Find Steed is a really good spell! But most mounts that are mundane beasts likely aren't going to do a whole lot on their own turn.

And you're going to have to rely on a DM that is very, very lenient.

[Kplus8]

I've taken some notes as to this subject. Admittedly it's Sage Advice which is borderline between RAW & RAI.
youtube /watch?v=99tX6tmc73Q&t=2019s
twitter. com/JeremyECrawford/status/973772525925646337?s=09
Find Steed in particular. It is a decision you make as to if it works as a controlled mount or not, as the steed serves you. That choice would basically be the tradeoff of special abilities of the mount & not being directly controlled, vs direct control but the less options.

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

[f5anor]

I like this interpretation, but I don't think it's RAW

"While you're mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently."

This doesn't leave room for choice, unfortunately.



Find steed / find greater steed—when you ride the mount in combat, you decide whether it follows the rules for a controlled or an independent mount. #DnD

You can take your pick with Find Steed. Effectively you can guide the steed by communicating with it not by controlling it, so so can have the cake and eat it.

The steed will both move as you direct it, but also have its own actions and attacks.

[AdAstra]

For people talking about multiple turns in one round, while you could maybe read it that way, the general Combat rules would definitely suggest one turn per round, period. Initiative only determines the order of turns, there's nothing in the book suggesting that you get +1 turn every time your Initiative comes up. The only example of outright taking multiple turns in a round I can remember is Thief, and that talks about the extra turn's initiative as a separate thing from the extra turn itself.

Find Steed stressing the whole "loyal steed that fights seamlessly with you in combat" thing definitely suggests it's up to the player whether they want the steed to act independently or not. Don't have to do it that way, but it works fine. If done that way, easiest way to run it is basically that the player can decide to have the Steed take its turn on any one of the initiatives where the Steed can act. Once the steed's taken its turn, it can no longer do so until the next round. I think this interpretation meshes well with the rules as written. Everyone gets one turn a round. The Steed just has multiple points in the initiative order where it can have its turn.

[Glorthindel]

Personally I vote for throwing the whole mounted combat rules in the bin - its vast tracts of confusing nonsense desperately cobbled together to stop mounted characters getting a bonus attack with a low hit bonus and piss-poor damage. It throws nothing in the game out of whack if you just let the character use the mounts movement rate and give the mount its (lousy) attack.

In the same vein, let Familiars attack too. It hardly breaks any fight involving characters higher than first level, and it saves us the headaches of players trying to eke some tiny combat benefit through fly-by helping owls.

[Gurgeh]

The flyby helping owls are not going to go away just because attacks are on the menu, because the familiar's attack is almost guaranteed to be less effective than the advantage you'd get to an actual good attack from said owl.

[Segev]

OK what does a controlled mount's initiative "changed to match yours" mean? Does it get to use its move and action before you, or after?

Can I ride my mount up to someone and attack them or not? Lol how the heck did these rules ever get published like this

When two creatures share an initiative, their actions occur on the same turn. "Your initiative" means "your turn" in 5e parlance. Any time there's meant to be a separation of turns, it will call out "and acts immediately before/after [x] turn." Controlled mount rules make perfect sense and operate intuitively if you embrace this understanding of the rules, and become super-confusing nonsense if you do not.

The above is as ironclad as any other rules in the game, in my view, but from here on out, I'm analyzing implications which may be more controversial.

As Ludic Savant pointed out, when you mount a controlled mount, its initiative changes to match yours. When you dismount, or otherwise cease to control it, nothing says its initiative is changed again, so it remains identical to yours. You and your mount, even if you stop riding it or you cede control back to it, now share an initiative every bit as much as all 20 goblins that roll only once to determine the group initiative.

Now, nothing in the rules indicates how or whether you can cede control back to your intelligent mount after having taken it when mounting. The surefire but very silly gameplay answer would be to dismount and re-mount, choosing not to have control this time. Sensibly, though, ceding control should probably be no more than a bonus action, or even a non-action. Using "you are a controlled mount for all of the moment it takes to sync our initiatives, then I cede control back to you" could be easily justified in narrative sense as the mount permitting the rider to give some direction that puts them in sync so they can move together, and then letting the mount act as it will thereafter. The mount permitting itself to be a controlled mount rather than a climbed-upon piece of terrain is also a matter of some voluntary choice, I would argue; even an unintelligent beast you would mount and control could balk, and likely requires animal handling checks to bring to heel.

[Bobthewizard]

So let’s say it had an initiative higher than mine. It does it’s turn. Then I mount it and control it on my turn. Then I dismount on my turn and it loses the tie and it now has initiative after me…

Three turns a round? One? I don’t get to control it because it moved?

Your common sense interpretations are fine. The rules are not.

I don't think that's what the rules say. In the combat step by step rules it says "Each participant in the battle takes a turn in Initiative order." which I think says you get one turn, even if your initiative changes.

If the mount uses its action and movement on its initial turn. When you mount it, it's initiative changes to yours, but if it has already used its movement and action for the round it doesn't gain another one of either.

Normally a creature gets one action, one bonus action, one reaction and one move each round. Initiative just determines when you can use them. Some specific abilities can give someone additional uses of some of them, even letting you take two full turns. That specific use of turn would allow a second action, bonus action and move. But changing initiative doesn't give you an extra turn. You still only have one.

[Melphizard]

When DMing for people on horses I see it as:

1. While mounted, you basically just use the mount's speed and can have it dash, disengage, or dodge whenever you feel during your turn.

2. AoEs will hit your mount unless you have the feat to make them not

3. If your mount is a size larger than the enemy, you have advantage on the attack.

4. If your mount dies, you go prone.

It's not too complex but it's decently powerful. Horses aren't much use indoors or in dungeons though. If there's a single spellcaster then the players will likely have their mounts die immediately unless it's something like an elephant but those aren't exactly all-terrain. Personally, I have general creed of not directly targeting the party's mounts with attacks as long as they don't have the mount start attacking. The moment a character's Pegasus makes a hoof attack I'm shooting it out of the sky!

[Psyren]

Somewhat timely as Treantmonk put out a very high-DPR mounted rogue build: The Double Phantom (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKF5TR8U6_o)

TL;DW it utilizes the synergy between Steady Aim and Phantom Steed on a Phantom Rogue, along with Elven Accuracy to get super advantage without needing allied support.

[Skrum]

In the RAW it literally says a mount acts *on the turn* you mount it. By RAW, it acts on the player's turn. That's straightforward.

And again, even if you think INT 6 is enough to qualify as "an intelligent mount", Find Steed has more language about how the creature operates. It literally has the words "Your steed serves you as a mount" in the text of the spell.

"Act on the player's turn" is anything but straightforward.

If my character isn't mounted, they can move 10 ft, attack, then move another 15 ft and attack again (assuming they had the movement speed, attacks, etc). Can I do that while mounted? Because that would be the mount taking part of their turn, then the character taking part of their turn, then switching back to the mount's turn, until both creatures turns were taken. RAW, different characters CANNOT act at the same time. Thus, even if they have the same initiative, one acts before the other. But strictly adhering to that wouldn't allow for actual mounted combat as one would think of it (the rider and mount acting together).

Common sense would say that, basically, the mount's speed becomes the character's speed, and they act normally after that - along with some special rules about being targeted since there's still two creatures in the same space. But that's not what RAW says.

[Segev]

"Act on the player's turn" is anything but straightforward.

If my character isn't mounted, they can move 10 ft, attack, then move another 15 ft and attack again (assuming they had the movement speed, attacks, etc). Can I do that while mounted? Because that would be the mount taking part of their turn, then the character taking part of their turn, then switching back to the mount's turn, until both creatures turns were taken. RAW, different characters CANNOT act at the same time. Thus, even if they have the same initiative, one acts before the other. But strictly adhering to that wouldn't allow for actual mounted combat as one would think of it (the rider and mount acting together).

Common sense would say that, basically, the mount's speed becomes the character's speed, and they act normally after that - along with some special rules about being targeted since there's still two creatures in the same space. But that's not what RAW says.

Yes. The mount's initiative is your initiative; you can break up your actions and movement and their actions and movement as you like on that initiative.

[LudicSavant]

For people talking about multiple turns in one round, while you could maybe read it that way, the general Combat rules would definitely suggest one turn per round, period. Initiative only determines the order of turns, there's nothing in the book suggesting that you get +1 turn every time your Initiative comes up. The only example of outright taking multiple turns in a round I can remember is Thief, and that talks about the extra turn's initiative as a separate thing from the extra turn itself.

This seems like it'd be a workable way of running the initiative-swapping madness. If you've already taken a turn, it doesn't matter if your initiative comes up again in the same round, period.

That just leaves the oddness of intelligent mount turns being desynced from their riders (so that things like a cavalry charge suddenly don't work just because the mount is smarter, blargh). Which at least is less of a problem than the initiative-swapping weirdness.

[AdAstra]

This seems like it'd be a workable way of running the initiative-swapping madness. If you've already taken a turn, it doesn't matter if your initiative comes up again in the same round, period.

That just leaves the oddness of intelligent mount turns being desynced from their riders (so that things like a cavalry charge suddenly don't work just because the mount is smarter, blargh). Which at least is less of a problem than the initiative-swapping weirdness.

It can still work alright if you treat Initiative like a slot where you can have your turn, but are not obligated to take at the first available opportunity. Effectively ends up like a more limited version of Delay, where you can take your turn on any available point in Initiative where you are allowed to, but still only once per round (barring specific exceptions).

So like, example, you have a fancy conjured Steed. Combat starts, your Steed rolls an 18, you roll a 10. You can have the Steed act either on 18, or on your turn (10, and only while you're actually mounted on it, unless you rule that the telepathic bond lets you basically control it from afar), but not both. In this case treating the change in Initiative for a controlled mount as reversible, and still adhering to the normal restrictions for controlled mounts. Allows the player to have the Steed act however works best for the situation, without any initiative nonsense. The worst edge case I can think of right now is the Steed getting Incapacitated or the rider getting knocked off between two points where it could have gone, but that's not really a rules problem, that's just bad luck for the player that they took a risk that didn't pan out. There's also "start/end of your next turn" type effects, which are probably more problematic rules-wise, but I'm not sure how much it would actually come up. Even things like Shield shared with the Steed would probably just default to ending on your turn since you were the caster.

Argh, misread the issue. Yeah, it's not ideal. It prevents an easy charge>make all attacks>retreat, but I don't consider that a huge issue since it makes sense for cavalry to get stuck in a little on the charge. While a tad weird-feeling on the tabletop, a conventional charge (presumably involving Readied attacks) where the riders and mounts can't perfectly coordinate and exit the engagement in an orderly fashion without sacrificing some offensive power works well enough.

[Jerrykhor]

I've played a character build centered around mounted combat for a whole campaign, and the only thing arguable was which space the rider occupies in relation to the mount. Because the mount is always bigger, its not clear if the rider should be right in the center, or anywhere within the mounts space.

Another grey area is the definition of 'appropriate anatomy'.

When i read the Mounted rules, and then Find Steed, its pretty much telling me 'You want a mount? Here it is. Its strong, smart, fast and does what you want it to do, never disobeys you and is mentally linked to you. Its the dream mount, everything a rider could ask for. And you can summon it again if it dies, no emotional attachment."

If you want a technical argument for me, here it is: 'It moves as you direct it.... A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn you mount it' There. You can only direct it on your turn, so this is the exception to the rule of creatures with same initiative having to go either before or after another. This is the 'Specific beats general' situation.

[Segev]

If you want a technical argument for me, here it is: 'It moves as you direct it.... A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn you mount it' There. You can only direct it on your turn, so this is the exception to the rule of creatures with same initiative having to go either before or after another. This is the 'Specific beats general' situation.

I remain unconvinced that such a rule exists, in general (rather than in specific situations where it's explicitly spelled out). Can you provide a general rule citation?

[Keltest]

I remain unconvinced that such a rule exists, in general (rather than in specific situations where it's explicitly spelled out). Can you provide a general rule citation?

Its in the PHB, page 189 under the initiative rules (go figure). When a tie occurs, the DM decides the order between DM-controlled creatures, players decide amongst themselves, and if there is a creature-DM tie, the DM decides based on whatever methods they choose. A tie is explicitly not simultaneous.

[Segev]

Its in the PHB, page 189 under the initiative rules (go figure). When a tie occurs, the DM decides the order between DM-controlled creatures, players decide amongst themselves, and if there is a creature-DM tie, the DM decides based on whatever methods they choose. A tie is explicitly not simultaneous.

That's about a tie in the initiative roll. It tells you to resolve the order of the two initiatives. It says nothing about when there is not a tied roll for two separate initiatives, but rather there are actually multiple creatures sharing the SAME initiative. Which the RAW on the same page (or at least in the same section, if it runs across multiple pages) also specify are to exist when, say, you have more than one goblin, more than one skeleton, or more than one of any particular monster that uses the same monster manual entry: you are to roll a single initiative roll for them, and they all act on the same one.

The quote you're referencing instead refers to when you have two or more different creatures or groups of creatures, each of which get their own initiative roll, and therefore do not share an initiative. If they roll the same value, the DM adjudicates which initiative goes first, second, third, etc., precisely because they do not act on the same initiative.

[Keltest]

I've always read that line as being "it's initiative changes to be the same number as yours." not "It acts simultaneously on your turn." The mount still has its own initiative, it just changes to tie with you, at which point the player resolves the tie however they prefer, since the player controls both creatures.

[Segev]

I've always read that line as being "it's initiative changes to be the same number as yours." not "It acts simultaneously on your turn." The mount still has its own initiative, it just changes to tie with you, at which point the player resolves the tie however they prefer, since the player controls both creatures.

There are no "initiative numbers" in 5e. There is an "initiative order," which is the order in which the initiatives are executed. Even the rules on rolling for initiative make it clear that, when there's a tie in the roll, two initiatives are distinct. The number no longer matters once you've determined initiative order. You just rotate through the initiatives, letting creatures act on their initiatives. When something changes initiative to match something else, they share the same initiative now.

[Keltest]

There are no "initiative numbers" in 5e. There is an "initiative order," which is the order in which the initiatives are executed. Even the rules on rolling for initiative make it clear that, when there's a tie in the roll, two initiatives are distinct. The number no longer matters once you've determined initiative order. You just rotate through the initiatives, letting creatures act on their initiatives. When something changes initiative to match something else, they share the same initiative now.

Of course they still matter. If a new creature needs to roll an initiative (for example, somebody casts a spell that summons a monster) you need to add it into the initiative order, which you cant do if you abandoned the number after determining initiative at the start. The number isnt just abandoned once combat begins.

Lair actions also happen on initiative 20, which wouldnt be possible if initiative 20 wasnt a thing after initiative was rolled.

[Segev]

Of course they still matter. If a new creature needs to roll an initiative (for example, somebody casts a spell that summons a monster) you need to add it into the initiative order, which you cant do if you abandoned the number after determining initiative at the start. The number isnt just abandoned once combat begins.

Lair actions also happen on initiative 20, which wouldnt be possible if initiative 20 wasnt a thing after initiative was rolled.

Ah, good points.

Regardless, however, the rules say the mount shares your initiative, not your initiative count. Same for groups of creatures that share an initiative roll.

[Keltest]

Ah, good points.

Regardless, however, the rules say the mount shares your initiative, not your initiative count. Same for groups of creatures that share an initiative roll.

I dont think thats accurate either. It says its "initiative changes to match yours." Not that it shares your initiative. That sounds like a tied initiative to me. At the very least, it still has its own initiative, since it's initiative changed, rather than being abandoned.

[Segev]

I dont think thats accurate either. It says its "initiative changes to match yours." Not that it shares your initiative. That sounds like a tied initiative to me. At the very least, it still has its own initiative, since it's initiative changed, rather than being abandoned.

If it said, "Your position changes to match your mount's on the battlefield," would that mean that you were actually occupying a square adjacent to your mount's square(s)?

[Keltest]

If it said, "Your position changes to match your mount's on the battlefield," would that mean that you were actually occupying a square adjacent to your mount's square(s)?

No, but then there arent rules that specify what to do if two creatures share the same space (or rather, there are, but none that would automatically expel you from that space). There are rules for how to handle it if two different creatures have the same initiative roll.

Also, 5e is generally fairly explicit when it wants something to act on your turn, using that language specifically. I refer you to the Simulacrum spell, for example.

[Segev]

No, but then there arent rules that specify what to do if two creatures share the same space (or rather, there are, but none that would automatically expel you from that space). There are rules for how to handle it if two different creatures have the same initiative roll.

Also, 5e is generally fairly explicit when it wants something to act on your turn, using that language specifically. I refer you to the Simulacrum spell, for example.

Eh. The reading I give the initiative rules results in smooth operation of combat, with things working in intuitive ways. The readings that try to strictly enforce one turn ending before another begins even though nothing in the rules says to do that create all of the "broken" situations that this thread was started to discuss.

I do not believe my reading to be in violation of the RAW, and therefore I view it as the correct reading of the RAW, since it results in intuitive, clean functionality with no issues that are not shared by the alternative readings, and the alternative readings create these gamist obstacles to combat running the way we instinctively feel it should.

[Keltest]

Eh. The reading I give the initiative rules results in smooth operation of combat, with things working in intuitive ways. The readings that try to strictly enforce one turn ending before another begins even though nothing in the rules says to do that create all of the "broken" situations that this thread was started to discuss.

I do not believe my reading to be in violation of the RAW, and therefore I view it as the correct reading of the RAW, since it results in intuitive, clean functionality with no issues that are not shared by the alternative readings, and the alternative readings create these gamist obstacles to combat running the way we instinctively feel it should.

Your reading creates an additional difference in how intelligent and unintelligent mounts are handled though. Under my reading, they both have their own turns, the only difference is who controls the mount and what actions it can take.

[cookieface]

When DMing for people on horses I see it as:

1. While mounted, you basically just use the mount's speed and can have it dash, disengage, or dodge whenever you feel during your turn.

2. AoEs will hit your mount unless you have the feat to make them not

3. If your mount is a size larger than the enemy, you have advantage on the attack.

4. If your mount dies, you go prone.

It's not too complex but it's decently powerful. Horses aren't much use indoors or in dungeons though. If there's a single spellcaster then the players will likely have their mounts die immediately unless it's something like an elephant but those aren't exactly all-terrain. Personally, I have general creed of not directly targeting the party's mounts with attacks as long as they don't have the mount start attacking. The moment a character's Pegasus makes a hoof attack I'm shooting it out of the sky!

Can you clarify #2? I initially read it as Attacks of Opportunity, which by RAW can be directed at you or your mount. The Mounted Combatant feat can force those attacks (and any attacks that target your mount) to target you instead.

The feat only mentions that mounts can avoid AOE damage from DEX saves (ie Fireball) if they succeed on the saving throw. Is that what you are referencing?

[cookieface]

No, but then there arent rules that specify what to do if two creatures share the same space (or rather, there are, but none that would automatically expel you from that space). There are rules for how to handle it if two different creatures have the same initiative roll.

Also, 5e is generally fairly explicit when it wants something to act on your turn, using that language specifically. I refer you to the Simulacrum spell, for example.

I'd agree that the Mounted Combat rules are more confusing when you consider where, on a grid, you and your mount occupy space. (That is, if I can reach an enemy in the northeast position from my mount, can I also reach an enemy in the southwest position without invoking an AOO? Grid example below... enemy 1 is red, PC is green, mount is blue, enemy 2 is orange.)

⬜⬜⬜🟥
⬜🟦🟩⬜
⬜🟦🟦⬜
🟧⬜⬜⬜

Regarding "fairly explicit when it wants something to act on your turn" ... the rules for mounted combat explicitly state "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."

Specifically, it says it matches your initiative. Not your initiative count or your initiative roll, your initiative. The rules on initiative are fairly clear about what this means: "Initiative determines the order of turns during combat. When combat starts, every participant makes a Dexterity check to determine their place in the initiative order. The DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time."

Initiative determines the order of turns, so if something matches your initiative your turns happen at the same time in the order. (Compare to, say, Summon Beast: "In combat, the creature shares your initiative count, but it takes its turn immediately after yours." In this case, it matches initiative count and explicitly states how that tie is broken.)

I emphasized the second half of the PHB quote to give an example of how groups of creatures can act at the same time. By RAW, creatures with the same initiative act at the same time, not in quick succession of one another.

And again, highlighting that the RAW for mounted combat specifically states a controlled mount acts on the turn you mount it -- so even if it has taken a turn in the initiative order, it can still operate as normal on the turn you mount it. Additionally, this proves that mounts act on the player's turn (ie share their initiative), not immediately before or after. Call it specific overruling general if you like, but this means that mounts act at the same time their rider does, not before or after.

[HPisBS]

In the RAW it literally says a mount acts *on the turn* you mount it. By RAW, it acts on the player's turn. That's straightforward.

And again, even if you think INT 6 is enough to qualify as "an intelligent mount", Find Steed has more language about how the creature operates. It literally has the words "Your steed serves you as a mount" in the text of the spell.

Moreover, "Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out, and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit."

In other words, your teamwork is complete and flawless, and your actions are perfectly concerted.


I also affirm that "A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it" must mean you and the mount act simultaneously.

[Keltest]

Yeah, that's fair. The rules are pretty clear about how turns work.

[Segev]

Your reading creates an additional difference in how intelligent and unintelligent mounts are handled though. Under my reading, they both have their own turns, the only difference is who controls the mount and what actions it can take.

I do not see this as a problem. The differences between controlled and uncontrolled mounts including the difference that controlled mounts act on your turn (the turn they were mounted, for example) is not creating problems. It resolves them.

[Keltest]

I do not see this as a problem. The differences between controlled and uncontrolled mounts including the difference that controlled mounts act on your turn (the turn they were mounted, for example) is not creating problems. It resolves them.

It's not about creating or solving problems, it's about consistency. If it's a separate turn no matter what, mounts work basically the same whether they're intelligent or not, and it's just a matter of trading fine control for more options for the mount.

[Segev]

It's not about creating or solving problems, it's about consistency. If it's a separate turn no matter what, mounts work basically the same whether they're intelligent or not, and it's just a matter of trading fine control for more options for the mount.

By that logic, the most consistent thing to do would be have no difference at all between controlled and uncontrolled mounts.

[Keltest]

By that logic, the most consistent thing to do would be have no difference at all between controlled and uncontrolled mounts.
I didn't design the game. For whatever reason they wrote in some explicit differences. But beyond that, imo the systems should at least translate to each other.

[Chronos]

One reasonable place to draw the line between "intelligent" and "unintelligent" is whether a creature knows any languages. A paladin's steed does, as do the few other beasts with Int greater than 6, and none of the beasts with an Int less than 6 do. There is still the ape, which is also right at Int 6 but doesn't know any languages, but I think it's reasonable to say that even within the same score, there's some level of variation.

I do think that a warhorse's attack options are rather a quirk in the mounted combat rules. Why can warhorses attack more effectively than draft horses? Because they're trained to, of course. But who's training horses to make attacks they can never use? Or do army cavalry ride into battle and then dismount, so their horses can fight like they were trained to? As it is, a "real" warhorse that's being used as a warhorse is intended to be used can never use its training, only a spirit masquerading as a warhorse.

[Dark.Revenant]

All I'll say is that 5.5e really needs new mounted combat rules.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Personally I vote for throwing the whole mounted combat rules in the bin - its vast tracts of confusing nonsense desperately cobbled together to stop mounted characters getting a bonus attack with a low hit bonus and piss-poor damage. It throws nothing in the game out of whack if you just let the character use the mounts movement rate and give the mount its (lousy) attack.

In the same vein, let Familiars attack too. It hardly breaks any fight involving characters higher than first level, and it saves us the headaches of players trying to eke some tiny combat benefit through fly-by helping owls.

On your last point, in last week's session our other DM let a Familiar, who didn't happen to have anything to do in a round, attack a Stirge. The Stirge had 2 hp, and you guessed it, the Owl rolled a 20 and killed the Stirge. It was a good moment, and not one that broke the game. Some rules just seem to be made to have rules so bin them.

To the OP, yeah, there seems to me to be a bit of a hate on by the game designers for some combat styles in 5e. Mounted combat is at or near the top of the list, and for what reason I don't know. Without DM permission, most characters are only going to have access to horses, and given the financial implications of that, players will be well into tier 1 before trained mounts and barding aren't a significant investment. If a DM wants players to have more powerful mounts as the game progresses, then that's their choice and the game can be balanced around having these mounts, without unnecessarily restrictive rules.

Thrown weapons, to me, are in the same category. Bows/ crossbows are one of the best ways to attack in the game, while a character who wants to throw hand axes, daggers, etc. is faced with a bunch of unnecessary obstacles to get even close to other combat styles.

[HPisBS]

...
Thrown weapons, to me, are in the same category. Bows/ crossbows are one of the best ways to attack in the game, while a character who wants to throw hand axes, daggers, etc. is faced with a bunch of unnecessary obstacles to get even close to other combat styles.

To be fair, literally throwing your weapon away shouldn't be your go-to move lol. It can be fun and cool, but it shouldn't be as strong as a normal strike or shot. Being disincentivized from relying on it as part of your standard combat routine just means the rules are working as intended / as verisimilitude demands.

(That said, I think something super small like darts should have a quality that lets you get around the normal limitations.)

[5eNeedsDarksun]

To be fair, literally throwing your weapon away shouldn't be your go-to move lol. It can be fun and cool, but it shouldn't be as strong as a normal strike or shot. Being disincentivized from relying on it as part of your standard combat routine just means the rules are working as intended / as verisimilitude demands.

(That said, I think something super small like darts should have a quality that lets you get around the normal limitations.)

I understand that point of view, though I can't rationalize that the same logic shouldn't be applied to bows/ ammunition if that's the case. For me, it should be no more difficult to grab multiple hand axes, daggers, etc and throw them than draw, nock, pull and fire multiple arrows. Regardless, if it is in the 'grey area' why not encourage more variation for characters (particularly martials)? That, to me, is where the thrown weapon issue overlaps with the mounted attacker; how great would it be for a fighter to have to option of effectively fighting mounted when conditions dictated.

On both of these our group does houserule around RAW to make these at least decent backup options. On the thrown weapons we just allow the draw to be part of each attack for multi-attackers.

[Doug Lampert]

On your last point, in last week's session our other DM let a Familiar, who didn't happen to have anything to do in a round, attack a Stirge. The Stirge had 2 hp, and you guessed it, the Owl rolled a 20 and killed the Stirge. It was a good moment, and not one that broke the game. Some rules just seem to be made to have rules so bin them.

To the OP, yeah, there seems to me to be a bit of a hate on by the game designers for some combat styles in 5e. Mounted combat is at or near the top of the list, and for what reason I don't know. Without DM permission, most characters are only going to have access to horses, and given the financial implications of that, players will be well into tier 1 before trained mounts and barding aren't a significant investment. If a DM wants players to have more powerful mounts as the game progresses, then that's their choice and the game can be balanced around having these mounts, without unnecessarily restrictive rules.

Thrown weapons, to me, are in the same category. Bows/ crossbows are one of the best ways to attack in the game, while a character who wants to throw hand axes, daggers, etc. is faced with a bunch of unnecessary obstacles to get even close to other combat styles.

It makes perfect sense that drawing a dagger is harder than drawing an arrow because,... because,... because REALISM, I saw a guy at a gym once draw an arrow pretty quickly, but I never saw him draw a dagger pretty quickly so it's entirely different.

Yeah, that's it.


To be fair, literally throwing your weapon away shouldn't be your go-to move lol. It can be fun and cool, but it shouldn't be as strong as a normal strike or shot. Being disincentivized from relying on it as part of your standard combat routine just means the rules are working as intended / as verisimilitude demands.

(That said, I think something super small like darts should have a quality that lets you get around the normal limitations.)

Military darts were NOT super small. A plumbata was about a foot long and estimated to be about half a pound.

[Keltest]

Frankly, it's probably because thrown weapons are genuinely inferior to (cross)bows and they just didn't want to make it anything more than a bonus to melee fighters or an emergency ranged weapon for str characters.

[HPisBS]

Military darts were NOT super small. A plumbata was about a foot long and estimated to be about half a pound.

I know actual combat darts are relatively big (and metal), but my mental image has always been that one Bruce Lee movie where he whittles them himself and mostly pierces people's hands with them.

And, having found the one man he could never beat, Chuck Norris then came back one night and split Bruce Lee into two fighters he could defeat: Jackie Chan and Jet Lee.


Frankly, it's probably because thrown weapons are genuinely inferior to (cross)bows and they just didn't want to make it anything more than a bonus to melee fighters or an emergency ranged weapon for str characters.

Indeed.

[Segev]

I didn't design the game. For whatever reason they wrote in some explicit differences. But beyond that, imo the systems should at least translate to each other.

You are, however, trying to insist on a reading of the rules based on "it has to be this separated, and it doesn't make sense if you do it this way, but it CAN'T be separated just a little more in a way that makes it behave sensibly." Despite the rules as written supporting the latter reading just fine.

[Gurgeh]

The action economy issue with thrown weapons is adequately patched by the fighting style in TCoE; their big problem is the ultra-short range. Every thrown weapon save the javelin has a paltry 20/60 - which, I should note, is the same as the range given to improvised thrown weapons (so the accurate throwing distance for a dagger is the same as it is for a greatsword, apparently). Sharpshooter can patch it up but unless you use darts it you're missing out on the damage bullet point, which feels bad (though I should note that the range and cover bullet points are still better than most feats in the game, so maybe it works out in the end).

[Dark.Revenant]

To the OP, yeah, there seems to me to be a bit of a hate on by the game designers for some combat styles in 5e. Mounted combat is at or near the top of the list, and for what reason I don't know. Without DM permission, most characters are only going to have access to horses, and given the financial implications of that, players will be well into tier 1 before trained mounts and barding aren't a significant investment. If a DM wants players to have more powerful mounts as the game progresses, then that's their choice and the game can be balanced around having these mounts, without unnecessarily restrictive rules.

If I recall correctly, only two of the sixteen standard prebuilt characters are mounted, and one of those is via Find Steed. And only then at Tier 2+.

Although, there is direct support for stronger mounts via the Figurine of Wondrous Power line of items.

Bronze Griffon: Rare, 6 hours, 5 day recharge, CR 2, walk 30/fly 80
Ebony Fly: Rare, 12 hours, 2 day recharge, CR 0, walk 30/fly 60
Golden Lions: Rare, 2x 1 hour, 7 day recharge each, CR 1, walk 50
Ivory Goats: Rare, 24/3/3 hours, 7/30/15 day recharge, CR 1/4|1/2|1/2, walk 60/40/40
Marble Elephant: Rare, 24 hours, 7 day recharge, CR 4, walk 40
Serpentine Owl: Rare, 8 hours, 2 day recharge, CR 1/4, walk 5/fly 60
Obsidian Steed: Very Rare, 24 hours, 5 day recharge, CR 3, walk 60/fly 90 (caveat emptor)
Gold Canary: Legendary, 8/1 hours, 1 day/1 year recharge, CR 1/2|17, walk 30/fly 60|walk 40/fly 80/swim 40

[Telok]

All I'll say is that 5.5e really needs new mounted combat rules.

Import the AD&D rules, aka "it works like you think it should and we don't care about grids". Can't be any worse than the current set.

Plus the old DMG had a table of horse traits and actual advice on mounted stuff. You might actually be willing to pay for a horse that could legit jump further or bite for more damage.

[diplomancer]

To the OP, yeah, there seems to me to be a bit of a hate on by the game designers for some combat styles in 5e. Mounted combat is at or near the top of the list, and for what reason I don't know.

I really don't see that; apart from some guidance about positioning when using a grid, which are needed, the rules are perfectly functional and they give a powerful option. I took the Mounted Combatant feat on level 8 with a Half-Orc Paladin and never regretted it all the way to level 20. Yes, there were times I couldn't use my steed, but not very often. Maybe around 15% of the time. Obviously campaign dependant (as it should be), but by level 8 I could already make a good assessment about that.