Mounted Combatants and the “Hand Economy”, or why mounted gishes might just suck

[Jervis]

As a quick primer, when I refer to the “hand economy”, I mean that the average human has two or fewer hands and that any given combination of actions require that one or more of those hands been occupied. For most use cases you have the either a single hand dedicated too a weapon and one to a shield, one too a weapon and one free for using said weapon, or some combination of spellcasting focus or component pouch and either shield or weapon. Unusual uses of the hand economy such as mounted combat or Gishy activities complicate this.

The first time I encountered this in 5e was with a standard cleric. The easy and most common answer to the question of how you hold a shield, mace, and holy symbol is just to paint a holy symbol onto your shield, allowing you to use it as a focus and thus perform somatic components. That’s not strict raw but it’s a common enough houserule that I see it fairly often. My actual answer to the problem was to wear my holy symbol around my neck and tie my weapon to a lanyard around my wrist, so to cast a spell I free action (or rather non-action) drop the weapon to hang around my wrist and reach over to my holy symbol to cast the spell, and then I item interaction pick up the weapon hanging by my wrist. Simple and 90% works by raw.

But now we get to the actual point of this thread and what made me make it. I was working on a wizard Gish subclass designed after a mounted Gish PRC from 3.5. I was making a feature that I was concerned would make a anti-feature that read in part like this.

“You are skilled in casting spells in the heat of battle. You can use use a horses reigns or a shield as a spellcasting focus and can control a horse with the same hand holding a shield.”

I wasn’t sure if that was already possible under the rules so I asked in the RAW questions thread. There was enough conversation on it, IE two answers with some slight disagreement, that I though I might as well make a thread about it. Basically this is founded on the premise that you need a free hand to control a horse so you can’t use a shield and weapon while riding. The old solution I used for focuses and weapons doesn’t work with a lance because a 10 foot pole hanging from your wrist is just a bit too silly.

So I wanted to start a discussion about mounted combat and shields/twf/gishes/two handed weapons other than lances. The fact that lances are one handed when riding a horse hints that the designers either A) wanted a two handed weapon damage option usable with a shield with reward mounted combat B) do intend for you to have a hand occupied while riding and thus need a one handed weapon for you to use or C) i’m putting way too much though into this and the writers didn’t think of any of this. I wanted to get some general opinions on the hand economy problem here. As was pointed out in the RAW thread people in real life use a shield and lance while jousting all the time and historically that was the thing to do. And arguably you only need a hand holding the reigns while moving, if even that since people commanding a horse with there knees is something several cultures have been doing for a long time. It’s also debatable by raw if you even need a free hand and can’t use the hand holding a shield. So I’d like to see what people have to say on this.

[Lord Torath]

All the literature I've read have mounted warriors directing their mounts by their knees, heels, and voice, leaving hands free for weapon and shield.

From a 2E perspective, having the Riding proficiency allowed you to control your mount without reins. Anyone could ride a trained mount, but only those with the proficiency could control their mount without reins, or ride hanging from the saddle, or do some other tricks.

I confess I am not terribly familiar with 5e. Is everyone automatically considered to be a skilled rider? Or do you need the right background or take a feat for it?

[Segev]

Classic jousting knights were mounted, a lance in one hand and a shield in the other.

[Jervis]

All the literature I've read have mounted warriors directing their mounts by their knees, heels, and voice, leaving hands free for weapon and shield.

From a 2E perspective, having the Riding proficiency allowed you to control your mount without reins. Anyone could ride a trained mount, but only those with the proficiency could control their mount without reins, or ride hanging from the saddle, or do some other tricks.

I confess I am not terribly familiar with 5e. Is everyone automatically considered to be a skilled rider? Or do you need the right background or take a feat for it?

There isn’t a dedicated riding proficiency, though land vehicle proficiency covers chariots and the like, but animal handling gets used for ride checks generally. Anyone can ride but doing something weird I believe usually calls for that skill check.

I know in 3.5 controlling a mount with your knees was a DC 5 ride check that could be passed on a 1 at first level with little to no optimization

[Damon_Tor]

Classic jousting knights were mounted, a lance in one hand and a shield in the other.

Yes but whether that was representative of actual combat is questionable. Jousting evolved from a martial discipline, but it developed its own gear and systems as it departed from the needs of actual warfare. Jousting required relatively little mount control, the horses would simply charge in a straight line down a well defined path they train to run down for years. Similarly, there was no need for jousting armor to allow for movement beyond that required by the joust itself, and the jousting posture was largely "locked in" by the armor. Directing a mount in actual combat would have been a more complex affair, and heavy plate with a shield would have been largely redundant outside of the very specific context of defending against a direct hit by a charging lance.

[Keltest]

Yes but whether that was representative of actual combat is questionable. Jousting evolved from a martial discipline, but it developed its own gear and systems as it departed from the needs of actual warfare. Jousting required relatively little mount control, the horses would simply charge in a straight line down a well defined path they train to run down for years. Similarly, there was no need for jousting armor to allow for movement beyond that required by the joust itself, and the jousting posture was largely "locked in" by the armor. Directing a mount in actual combat would have been a more complex affair, and heavy plate with a shield would have been largely redundant outside of the very specific context of defending against a direct hit by a charging lance.
The existence of various cavalry archer cultures like the Mongols suggests ot is at least possible to direct a mount while both hands are occupied.

[Damon_Tor]

The existence of various cavalry archer cultures like the Mongols suggests ot is at least possible to direct a mount while both hands are occupied.

There's a big difference between navigating a dense melee on horseback and the sort of strafing attacks you're thinking of.

[strangebloke]

Nothing in RAW requires you to hold reigns. Mounted combat rules talk about what is required as far as controlling your mount, and a free hand isn't listed. If a DM said you needed a hand, I would argue that's a pretty aggressive ruling, since it stops lots of classic mounted archetypes like "guy with sword and shield on a horse" and "guy with bow on a horse."

And yes, as it turns out, lots of people historically were able to direct their mounts without holding onto reigns 100% of the time. Horses are pretty smart herd animals and they're not going to careen off into a tree the instant you let go of the reigns. There's zero reason why they can't be trained to be directed by your legs or even your voice. It's hard but its doable by real-world standards, and DND has far more nutsy stuff than this.

So yeah. Get that sorcadin on a warhorse and weave in and out of combat like a boss.

[Segev]

There's a big difference between navigating a dense melee on horseback and the sort of strafing attacks you're thinking of.

You've yet to cite examples of fighting cavalry that used reins to the exclusion of having both hands free for combat, while at least two examples of mounted combat with both hands dedicated to fighting and 0 to controlling the horse have been given.

[DarknessEternal]

Nothing in RAW requires you to hold reigns. Mounted combat rules talk about what is required as far as controlling your mount, and a free hand isn't listed. If a DM said you needed a hand, I would argue that's a pretty aggressive ruling, since it stops lots of classic mounted archetypes like "guy with sword and shield on a horse" and "guy with bow on a horse."

This is all that needs to be said on the subject.

[Damon_Tor]

You've yet to cite examples of fighting cavalry that used reins to the exclusion of having both hands free for combat, while at least two examples of mounted combat with both hands dedicated to fighting and 0 to controlling the horse have been given.

Art from the period is pretty consistent about showing the rider with one hand on the reins or horn.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1c/ea/5a/1cea5adc6b4d7df4d37c863a4bd6badf.jpghttps://i.pinimg.com/564x/7c/f9/57/7cf957d35d5f786110a8ab0ace0fee11--medieval-combat-getty-museum.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/San_Romano_Battle_%28Paolo_Uccello%2C_London%29_01 .jpg/1280px-San_Romano_Battle_%28Paolo_Uccello%2C_London%29_01 .jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Getty_Ms._Ludwig_XV_13_42r_-_Fiore_dei_Liberi_-_Equestrian_Combat_with_Lance_and_Sword_-_Google_Art_Project_%286901517%29.jpg

In this one below we can see that the shields used specifically left a hand free to control the animal and/or secure the rider
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/60/6b/27/606b27e00fad04e5f71e304e6f21a8ff--modus-medieval-art.jpg

I'm not saying that means you've got to be a stickler about it in D&D, D&D is a fantasy setting, but don't cite jousting as an example of how mounted combat would have been performed: it has about as much in common with actual cavalry tactics as fencing does with infantry tactics.

[Jervis]

Art from the period is pretty consistent about showing the rider with one hand on the reins or horn.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1c/ea/5a/1cea5adc6b4d7df4d37c863a4bd6badf.jpghttps://i.pinimg.com/564x/7c/f9/57/7cf957d35d5f786110a8ab0ace0fee11--medieval-combat-getty-museum.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/San_Romano_Battle_%28Paolo_Uccello%2C_London%29_01 .jpg/1280px-San_Romano_Battle_%28Paolo_Uccello%2C_London%29_01 .jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Getty_Ms._Ludwig_XV_13_42r_-_Fiore_dei_Liberi_-_Equestrian_Combat_with_Lance_and_Sword_-_Google_Art_Project_%286901517%29.jpg

In this one below we can see that the shields used specifically left a hand free to control the animal and/or secure the rider
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/60/6b/27/606b27e00fad04e5f71e304e6f21a8ff--modus-medieval-art.jpg

I'm not saying that means you've got to be a stickler about it in D&D, D&D is a fantasy setting, but don't cite jousting as an example of how mounted combat would have been performed: it has about as much in common with actual cavalry tactics as fencing does with infantry tactics.

To be honest the shield example is a problem it’s how dnd does things. There’s nothing in the mechanics for a shield that don’t take up your hand, which isn’t exactly a odd thing. A shield strapped to your arm with a hand free to hold something isn’t unusual. Not sure how I would stat something like that.

[cZak]

does real world equestrian fall into the realm of physics in DnD?

[Damon_Tor]

does real world equestrian fall into the realm of physics in DnD?

Horses are extra-planar beings from the elemental plane of horse. It's magic, we don't got to explain ****

[JellyPooga]

Any modern rider would laugh at the suggestion that use of rein is neccessary to guide a mount. I'm by no means an experienced rider but I used to ride without reins as a riding exercise as a child. It's not even difficult to train both horse and rider to it.

An experienced cavalryman with a war-trained mount? Yeah. It's not even a question.

[Damon_Tor]

You've yet to cite examples of fighting cavalry that used reins to the exclusion of having both hands free for combat, while at least two examples of mounted combat with both hands dedicated to fighting and 0 to controlling the horse have been given.

And to follow up what I posted about European melee horse combat, if you look up period art of Mongolian horseback archers, you might notice something interesting:

https://cowboycountrymagazine.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Picture10-600x397.pnghttps://compote.slate.com/images/b134cec3-4d25-4ad5-80f3-e3330016b397.jpg?width=840https://www.toursmongolia.com/uploads/mounted-archery.jpg
They're using reins. They don't drop them to fire their weapons.

[JellyPooga]

Interesting thing about reins; just because you're holding them doesn't mean that A) you're using them or B) they significantly impact your activities. Do you imagine those horse archers are both aiming a bow and guiding a horse with the same hand? No, the most likely reason they're depicted holding them is either because it's easier to switch to rein if you don't drop it (and a loose rein is just a lot of tangling leather strap) or because the artist (entirely possibly someone that isn't a horse archer) couldn't imagine a world in which a horse can be guided without one.

[Slipjig]

Nobody has mentioned the TWF from OP's post. I would rule that is simply out: for any melee weapon other than a lance, you will be attacking a target at the horse's flank as you ride past. Unless you are sidesaddle, there's no way you'd physically be able to attack with two weapons at the same time. Though if they were lined up absolutely perfectly, you could attack one target on either side.

[Damon_Tor]

Any modern rider would laugh at the suggestion that use of rein is neccessary to guide a mount. I'm by no means an experienced rider but I used to ride without reins as a riding exercise as a child. It's not even difficult to train both horse and rider to it.

{scrubbed}


An experienced cavalryman with a war-trained mount? Yeah. It's not even a question.

I actually am an experienced rider, and I disagree. Under controlled conditions with an unstressed mount in a closed course your horse has run 100 times? Sure. In combat on unfamliar terrain where other people are tying to kill us and people are shouting (possibly gunfire) and the odds are very good the horse will receive at least minor injuries in the course of the battle? Hell no.

Unless you're one of the few police officers trained to use horses for anti-riot purposes. I can almost guarantee you have never ridden a horse in combat. Neither have I. Saying "It's not even a question" in regard to something you know absolutely nothing about is a certain kind of silly.

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2020/06/06/21/police-horses.jpg?width=1200
Look, reins. One would imagine if they weren't important, they wouldn't use them. It's awful nice to have a shield at a riot, after all.

I'll link a very basic article about the topic here. (https://equestlife.com/can-you-ride-a-horse-without-reins/)

Relevant excerpt: "While reins are important and, in some cases, indispensable (say during an emergency stop), they are not absolutely necessary to the riding of a horse."

Key takeaway: reins are important and, in some cases, indispensable.

[JellyPooga]

Relevant excerpt: "While reins are important and, in some cases, indispensable (say during an emergency stop), they are not absolutely necessary to the riding of a horse."

Key takeaway: reins are important and, in some cases, indispensable.
(emphasis mine)

That was your key takeaway? The conclusion of that sentence literally contradicts you. I, uh...I honestly can't say more than that. You're shooting yourself in the foot there, friend (but not from horseback apparently; that's obviously too hard to be possible by anyone ever). I might suggest you learn something about language structure.


I can almost guarantee you have never ridden a horse in combat. Neither have I.

{scrubbed}

[Damon_Tor]

(emphasis mine)

That was your key takeaway? The conclusion of that sentence literally contradicts you. I, uh...I honestly can't say more than that. You're shooting yourself in the foot there, friend (but not from horseback apparently; that's obviously too hard to be possible by anyone ever). I might suggest you learn something about language structure.

Wow, it's almost like it said three different things:
1. Reins are important
2. They are sometimes indispensable
3. They are not strictly necessary

I never said they were strictly necessary. But why would you willingly forgo something which is important, and may be indispensable, in a life-or-death scenario, simply because its not strictly necessary?

[JellyPooga]

I never said they were strictly necessary. But why would you willingly forgo something which is important, and may be indispensable, in a life-or-death scenario, simply because its not strictly necessary?

Because using both hands for more important things, like the reason you're on a horse in the first place (like fighting a battle) is more important?

[JNAProductions]

Because using both hands for more important things, like the reason you're on a horse in the first place (like fighting a battle) is more important?

Given what the posted bit says...

I'd put more importance on the "Sometimes indispensable" than the not always needed bit, because they're going to be more important in stressful or conflict-heavy situations... Like a battle.

Now, I'd be 100% fine with a PC guiding a mount with their knees without any difficulty, if that PC is an experienced rider, because that's cool. It's probably not realistic, but... *Gesticulates wildly at the dragons and wizards and all that.*

[Segev]

Thanks for the posts showing how reins were used in antiquity. I accept them as a possible rebuttal to the notion that they weren't necessarily used.

However, I think we also now see evidence that they didn't "occupy" a hand in the sense that they required one dedicated to them, but could share a hand with other things. Or the shield could be made to work without takin the rein hand.

In any event, I agree that being a stickler about it in D&D 5e is probably counterproductive.

[strangebloke]

You can ride a horse without holding the reins. Even a mediocre equestrian like myself can do that. You can shoot a bow while not holding the reins, though that's more the domain of experts. Both of these are not even remotely in contention.

Probably, realistically, the maneuvering you see from a typical mounted DND character (aka very fine 5-foot by 5-foot movement) is not possible without a hand on the reins. The motion is too erratic and frankly might not even be possible for a horse to actually accomplish. Its extremely difficult to walk backwards, for example.

However, this is a very fine point of nuance, and not something that's really cared about in the high fantasy context of a DND game. If reins must be held, perhaps they're holding them with their shield hand. Perhaps they're holding them with the hand reserved for casting magic, and then they drop the reins at the end of their turn. Maybe these mounts are exceptionally well-trained.

Regardless, RAW doesn't acknowledge this aspect of mounted combat, and while I think it would be fine for a DM to add such a thing, it is also adjacent to a lot of things that make people really really unhappy. It can feel like a DM insisting on such a point might also start injecting realism in other areas to screw over the characters. "Well capped fall damage is silly so actually you're just dead." If a player shows up to your table expecting to use sword and shield (allowable by RAW) and you inform them, no, you have to always have a hand on the reigns, they're going to be very very unhappy. And THAT is more important than most questions of RAW or realism.

[diplomancer]

A Dashing horse in D&D is going around at a speed of 13.6 miles per hour; that's NOT a full gallop, and it's the kind of speed that I suppose an experienced rider would not need to hold a rein to control his mount at all times.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Thread re-opened. Please keep in mind the Forum Rules on oversized images.

[ender241]

Next you'll tell me it's unrealistic for a human with no magical capabilities to fire a hand crossbow 9 times in 6 seconds while moving 30 feet.

[DarknessEternal]

The D&D rules have already been stated in this thread.

Use them if you're playing D&D.

[Jervis]

The D&D rules have already been stated in this thread.

Use them if you're playing D&D.

This is a tangent but something that just occurred to me regarding mounted combat rules. The rules say you can't occupy another creature's space, does this mean when you're riding a creature that meants youre always standing on its saddle and occupying the space above that creature?

[strangebloke]

This is a tangent but something that just occurred to me regarding mounted combat rules. The rules say you can't occupy another creature's space, does this mean when you're riding a creature that meants youre always standing on its saddle and occupying the space above that creature?
Rules like mounting and climbing atop enemies are exceptions to the general rule.

For mounts you technically occupy a corner of their 10x10 area. You pick which corner at the end of your turn.

[Segev]

Rules like mounting and climbing atop enemies are exceptions to the general rule.

For mounts you technically occupy a corner of their 10x10 area. You pick which corner at the end of your turn.

As a house rule I would recommend, it is easier to just say that you share your mount's space, in my opinion. So all four squares your horse occupies, you occupy.

[Jervis]

As a house rule I would recommend, it is easier to just say that you share your mount's space, in my opinion. So all four squares your horse occupies, you occupy.

This isn’t necessarily a house rule. The mounted combat rules are far from clear and I’ve seen people run it this way more often than not.

[Damon_Tor]

For mounts you technically occupy a corner of their 10x10 area. You pick which corner at the end of your turn.

I don't see this anywhere. Is this errata I'm missing?

5e is written as mostly grid-agnostic. There's no reason you have to be in "one corner" of your Mount's space unless you're locked in hard to a 5' square grid. You are simply sitting on top of your horse, you aren't glued to it's rear left hoof. So your space is up in the middle-ish of your horse's space, starting about 5 feet of the ground.

[Jervis]

I don't see this anywhere. Is this errata I'm missing?

5e is written as mostly grid-agnostic. There's no reason you have to be in "one corner" of your Mount's space unless you're locked in hard to a 5' square grid. You are simply sitting on top of your horse, you aren't glued to it's rear left hoof. So your space is up in the middle-ish of your horse's space, starting about 5 feet of the ground.

All most all of the rules for mounted combat, or at least the disambiguation that it really needs, comes from sage advice. IE not raw just developers explaining things they should have put in the book but didn’t because potatoes

[strangebloke]

I don't see this anywhere. Is this errata I'm missing?

5e is written as mostly grid-agnostic. There's no reason you have to be in "one corner" of your Mount's space unless you're locked in hard to a 5' square grid. You are simply sitting on top of your horse, you aren't glued to it's rear left hoof. So your space is up in the middle-ish of your horse's space, starting about 5 feet of the ground.


All most all of the rules for mounted combat, or at least the disambiguation that it really needs, comes from sage advice. IE not raw just developers explaining things they should have put in the book but didn’t because potatoes

yea this was a crawford tweet. honestly not a bad ruling, but annoying to get it from sage advice. The books were written as grid agnostic, but grids are basically necessary to have combats with more than 2-3 enemy types.

[Jervis]

For what it’s worth I run mounted combat in a modified version of the “blob method” I call “The Superposition Method”. That is to say you occupy every space of your mount and none of them at once. If someone can attack your mount, they can hit you. If your mount is in a AOE, so are you. However you can attack and be in any point of your mounts space for determining AOEs originating from your space (so no large size area of effect origins) and you can attack from the horse’s rear to avoid disadvantage on attack rolls

[Damon_Tor]

For what it’s worth I run mounted combat in a modified version of the “blob method” I call “The Superposition Method”. That is to say you occupy every space of your mount and none of them at once. If someone can attack your mount, they can hit you. If your mount is in a AOE, so are you. However you can attack and be in any point of your mounts space for determining AOEs originating from your space (so no large size area of effect origins) and you can attack from the horse’s rear to avoid disadvantage on attack rolls

I mean, the obvious "off grid" center-of-back method seems to work just fine though? It has the benefit of modeling reality and I don't see a single issue it causes.

If your character on the back of the horse is 5 feet off the ground and 2.5 feet away from each edge of his horse's space, you're still targetable by the 5' reach of melee attacks from guys adjacent to the horse (2.5 is less than 5). On the back of huge mount, yes, this puts you beyond the reach of a melee weapon... but shouldn't it? How are you going to hit a guy on the back of an elephant without a polearm?

[Jervis]

I mean, the obvious "off grid" center-of-back method seems to work just fine though? It has the benefit of modeling reality and I don't see a single issue it causes.

If your character on the back of the horse is 5 feet off the ground and 2.5 feet away from each edge of his horse's space, you're still targetable by the 5' reach of melee attacks from guys adjacent to the horse (2.5 is less than 5). On the back of large mount, yes, this puts you beyond the reach of a melee weapon... but shouldn't it? How are you going to hit a guy on the back of an elephant without a polearm?

I mean a elephant is a bit larger than larger. In that case you’re probably using a bow or something.

In the case of my “superposition” rule I implement it for simplicity. The blob method makes you large effectively which makes range self spells stronger. Plus this way lances are actually good because you choose the point to attack from.

[Damon_Tor]

I mean a elephant is a bit larger than larger. In that case you’re probably using a bow or something

I meant "huge".

[Jervis]

I meant "huge".

Fair enough though the game doesn’t support huge mounts that well. Though you do have the advantage of being far enough above the ground that ranged attacks don’t suffer disadvantage