The mounted combat experience

[Sindal]

Howdy

If you've played a pc that's frequency made use of or was built around mounted combat:

1) what was your experience? Had a fun time with it?
2)what class and subclass did you use

And if you weren't planning on it but started doing it due to access of a mount, how was that?

[Jerrykhor]

I played an Ancients Paladin with Mounted Combatant feat, it was fun. You are the king of mobility, since your mount can dash 120 feet in one turn.

I can't imagine playing a mounted character without Find Steed though, would suck to always have to buy another mount when it dies.

[Talamare]

I did for a one shot with Chevalier

Horse stepped on a trap, died


The end.

[diplomancer]

I played an Ancients Paladin with Mounted Combatant feat, it was fun. You are the king of mobility, since your mount can dash 120 feet in one turn.

I can't imagine playing a mounted character without Find Steed though, would suck to always have to buy another mount when it dies.

Once with a Half-Orc Ancients Paladin with Mounted Combatant feat, another a Halfling Devotion Paladin without the Feat but with the Interception fighting style.

They both worked well, but even with Sanctuary+Interception the second steed died a lot more due to AoE attacks. But was still able to do a hit and run style, since my Halfling had a Lance.

[Osuniev]

As a DM, one of my group had around a quarter of their fights between levels 2 and 9 involve mounts, mostly horses until level 7, then flying mounts (Giant Owls).

Classes were :
- PhB Beastmaster Ranger (surprisingly effective in the hands of an optimizer, she inflicted the most damage. She usually rode her Giant Badger companion, being a Gnome).
- Ancients Paladin
- Cavalier Fighter with the Mounted Combatant Feat (probably one of the reason it became a big thing, but they had purchased the horses for a long journey)
- Chaos Sorcerer (she didn't care much about being on a horse, although she was also the least tactical)
- Moon Druid (he WAS the mount of the Cavalier most of the time when they were indoors, turning into a bear)

We played (what I believe to be) RAW, with the horse's turn being before or after its rider, forcing the use of reaction for a single attack if you want to Hit and Run. Exception was the Beastmaster, since she shared her turn with her Giant Badger.

I didn't go out of my way to kill the mounts. They were often scared (forcing the riders to do an (easy) animal handling check in order not to fall and/or not to have the horse flee) when facing troll, ogres, anything big, when someone cast Shatter or Fireball, etc...
Sometimes smart ennemies targeted them, and for those using only horses with no way to protect them (ie Mounted Combatant Feat), yes, that often meant the horse would die and they would need a new one. Once a horse also ran away.

I still think it was worth it, and so did my players :
- the Mobility boost was HUGE : no enemy was really out of reach, disengaging was never an issue, etc.
- kiting COULD have been a winning strategy on most outdoors fight. Having two melee combatants in the group, it rarely was chosen, and the circumstances of the encounter often made it NOT an option (something to defend, someone on the ground, etc)

My general take :
- Mounted combat brings plenty of flavour and roleplay, with horses being named, camp being set-up without Leomunds Annoying Hut trivializing everything, death of the horse taking a toll on morale, etc.
- Mounted combat can be good and fun if both DM and players are onboard. Check with your DM before though.
- if your DM is onboard (ie not trying to punish you), keep in mind mounts are worth it if on only if :
* a good fraction of the encounters are outdoors
* area effects spells from the opponents are uncommon. (An enemy Fireball means the death of your mount, unless you've got the Mounted Combatant feat.)
* the adventure supplies you with enough money and settlements that buying a new horse, while significant, is not a huge issue. The cost of a horse is comparable to the cost of a healing potion (in many settings, FINDING horses should be easier than finding a potion !)
* the mount dying sometimes is ok in the player's mind

Additional considerations :
- if your mount is not something you buy but something you get (Beastmaster Companion, Find Steed, Phantom Steed, a Summoned or Dominated beast...) then they are huge, even with a very restricting reading of the rules.
- buying Armor for your mount is expensive (more than buying new mounts everytime it dies) but is also a flavourful money sink
- the extra mobility is a Very, Very, Very big game changer for characters that need to get in melee quickly (Paladins, Barbarians, Melee Fighters) or get out of melee quickly (low AC, no Misty Step or equivalent, etc...)

[Mastikator]

I DM'd for a player that played an always mounted PC in a one-shot, specifically a halfling riding a dinosaur, she had the mounted combatant feat. Sounds cool on paper but she didn't use it, mostly this player didn't realize she could use her mount to disengage. She was a barbarian, level 5.

There were many opportunities for her to use it so I consider it mostly "her fault", but it is more paperwork which may overwhelm some players. Next time I'll look out for players that have trouble remembering their character's abilities and advice against a mount.

I also played a character with a mount in a different system, it was fun even though the system kinda discouraged mounted combat. (you had to roll a riding skill check every time you wanted to move your mount and attack the same round, but doing so also granted an extra attack from the mount so it wasn't all negative), in my case it was worth it because it was a magic horse that could cast spells (which I could command it to cast on my turn along side my own action). However if it was just a normal war horse I'd probably stay on my own feet.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Played 2 different paladins with the Mounted Combatant feat, an Ancients and a Conquest.

Both were a lot of fun, but neither time did the DM run the RAW rules for mounts - in both cases the mount's turn was subsumed into the PC's turn, so it basically increased my speed to 60' and the mount didn't really get a turn. I could have asked about uncontrolled mounts and giving them their own turn, but then you're asking for the RAW rules to apply again, with all the hassle that comes with it.

I also ran a vengeance paladin without the feat, and that was fun as well (again, with the above rules instead of RAW...and that's now 3 different DMs!). This DM read the Find Steed spell and allowed the 7th level Relentless Avenger feature to work for the Steed as well. Which isn't RAW, but probably should be. Since the paladin had PAM and began regularly using the Haste spell at 9th, it made him into sort of a hilariously hard-to-engage skirmisher.

[diplomancer]

Played 2 different paladins with the Mounted Combatant feat, an Ancients and a Conquest.

Both were a lot of fun, but neither time did the DM run the RAW rules for mounts - in both cases the mount's turn was subsumed into the PC's turn, so it basically increased my speed to 60' and the mount didn't really get a turn. I could have asked about uncontrolled mounts and giving them their own turn, but then you're asking for the RAW rules to apply again, with all the hassle that comes with it.

I also ran a vengeance paladin without the feat, and that was fun as well (again, with the above rules instead of RAW...and that's now 3 different DMs!). This DM read the Find Steed spell and allowed the 7th level Relentless Avenger feature to work for the Steed as well. Which isn't RAW, but probably should be. Since the paladin had PAM and began regularly using the Haste spell at 9th, it made him into sort of a hilariously hard-to-engage skirmisher.

Just a quick comment. The correct interpretation of the RAW of Mounted Combat regarding the mount's turn is quite controversial. I'm in the camp that the correct interpretation is the same your DMs followed. The DMs I've played with also interpreted it the same way.

[Osuniev]

Just a quick comment. The correct interpretation of the RAW of Mounted Combat regarding the mount's turn is quite controversial. I'm in the camp that the correct interpretation is the same your DMs followed. The DMs I've played with also interpreted it the same way.

I'm aware of the controversy (I'm on the other side but I understand and respect the point of view that the mount's turn is freely mixd with the rider), but I think he's saying the Mount didn't get an action at all (ie no Disengage/Dash/Dodge from the mount unless the rider does the same). Is that the interpretation you were talking about ?

[JellyPooga]

Currently playing a Gnome mounted on a "Riding Hound" (Hyena stats) Rogue/Ranger in a PbP game. Only lvl.2 at the moment, but it's fun being fast! Not having to use Cunning Action (when I get it) for Dash and still being able to really shift will be interesting and always being able to proc Sneak Attack in melee while mounted has already paid for itself.

I think it interesting that mounted Rogue doesn't come up in conversations all that often as it's pretty much the one class that really has a benefit from being mounted, in melee at least.

[diplomancer]

I'm aware of the controversy (I'm on the other side but I understand and respect the point of view that the mount's turn is freely mixd with the rider), but I think he's saying the Mount didn't get an action at all (ie no Disengage/Dash/Dodge from the mount unless the rider does the same). Is that the interpretation you were talking about ?

What I understood from the post is that the mount got those actions, but in the same turn as the player, not getting its own separate turn. If it meant that the horse just had movement and no action at all, then no, I wasn't talking about that, and that was not how my DMs played it.

[Guy Lombard-O]

I'm aware of the controversy (I'm on the other side but I understand and respect the point of view that the mount's turn is freely mixd with the rider), but I think he's saying the Mount didn't get an action at all (ie no Disengage/Dash/Dodge from the mount unless the rider does the same). Is that the interpretation you were talking about ?

Yes, that's correct - no action at all for the mount, in exchange for the mount's turn being intermixed with the PC's turn (and thus able to move about freely and make use of Extra Attack).

But even with that (somewhat worse than RAW, somewhat better than RAW, but overall way simpler than RAW to run) compromise (and from 3 different DMs, no less - although if I'd pushed for the mount getting turns, it's possible I could have gotten them), mounted combat was still quite fun and useful, especially with the feat. Advantage on attacks came up fairly often, and the increased mobility meant way fewer turns wasted on dashing to reach the enemy.

[RogueJK]

I can't imagine playing a mounted character without Find Steed though, would suck to always have to buy another mount when it dies.

TCoE Beastmaster with a Small race riding a Beast of the Land works very well. If your Mount dies, you can resummon it 1x/LR for free, and additional times with the use of a 1st level slot. So it's actually "cheaper" to resummon than Find Steed, and it's a tougher mount to begin with.

Primal Companion mount also solves the "when does the mount get to act" argument, because the ability specifically states that the beast acts during your own turn. Whereas the other subclasses that get built-in mountable pets, like Battle Smith and Drake Warden, all specify that the mount acts immediately after your turn, so you don't get to benefit from the added mobility during your turn. And RAW on a controlled mount via Find Steed is that it matches your initiative but (depending on interpretation) potentially acts either before or after your turn, again potentially depriving you of added mobility during your own turn (depending on how flexible your DM is).

Therefore, I think Beast of the Land is the best option for a mount (for a Small PC), even more so than Find Steed.

[Psyren]

I had a Gnome Battlesmith for a one-shot that worked really well. If I could remake that character today though I would go Autognome instead. The mount of course would be the Steel Defender. With it being Medium and you being Small, riding around indoors with a lance or crossbow are relatively easy.

In addition to the cool stuff they get for being a construct like not needing to sleep, Autognomes get two free tool proficiencies which Artificer then upgrades to Expertise, making you not just a solid tank but a decent trapmonkey as well if you make one of them be Thieves' tools. You can even get away with being fairly stealthy by going naked and relying on your racial plating.

[Person_Man]

I would also love to hear stories about how mounts played out in real games, because I’ve rarely seen it, except for Paladins where Find Steed is an amazing but situational power bump.

To me, it seems like the basic issue is that to benefit from the best part of the Feat, you want a large mount. But a large mount is very hard or impossible to ride around in dungeons or other cramped spaces, which is a huge percentage of the combats in a game called dungeons and dragons. So its not worth investing in the Feat unless your DM gives you a heads up that you’ll be adventuring outdoors a lot.

Seems like the ideal would be play a small race riding a mount that could change size, like a Druid. But I’ve not seen that in a real game before.

[Selion]

I did for a one shot with Chevalier

Horse stepped on a trap, died


The end.


If you can afford a feat, ritual caster allows you to write rituals in a spellbook. If you find/buy a phantom steed scroll you may have expendable (1hp) mounts, it doesn't really matter, since you are using mounted combatant to prevent damage and aoe damage would one shot your mount anyway
I can see this build work only as human or custom lineage, and you won't see an ASI for a long time.

[animorte]

I've made a character before with a lot of the concepts focused on mounted combat. It was not a great time.

Communicating with the DM about what kind of game is expected helps in the long run. It also helps if the DM can adjust various things to give everybody's different specializations a time to shine, or at least be used. During that one campaign with my mounted combat focused PC, we were inside closed spaces a lot of the time. The one bright shining moment was being able to participate in a jousting tournament. That was really fun actually. The rest of that character's career was a forced exercise in trying to not be miserable.

[Psyren]

I would also love to hear stories about how mounts played out in real games, because I’ve rarely seen it, except for Paladins where Find Steed is an amazing but situational power bump.

To me, it seems like the basic issue is that to benefit from the best part of the Feat, you want a large mount. But a large mount is very hard or impossible to ride around in dungeons or other cramped spaces, which is a huge percentage of the combats in a game called dungeons and dragons. So its not worth investing in the Feat unless your DM gives you a heads up that you’ll be adventuring outdoors a lot.

Seems like the ideal would be play a small race riding a mount that could change size, like a Druid. But I’ve not seen that in a real game before.

An alternative way to use the feat is that you can just ride a Medium mount and use the Enlarge spell for outdoor combats. This is another easy Battlesmith trick :smallamused:

[PallyBass]

My first mounted combat PC was accidental and a ton of fun. I was playing a Oath of Vengeance Paladin in my first 5e game and I stumbled onto the Find Steed spell at level 5. I never took Mounted Combatant Feat so the horse died often but it was not a big deal for my character because he was focused on fighting with a greatsword. Thematically I liked the flavor of charging into battle with the horse and continuing to fight even after my horse was poofed into mist, it fit my characters reckless nature. I treated Find Steed like a "buff" spell I would cast along with Aid before the adventuring day began. Also the DM gave me a nice houserule that due to the telepathic connection between my paladin and the steed the horse would act during my turn AND could attack/dash/disengage at my direction. This was a huge boon, as the horse did respectable damage for level 5 with hooves and trample. DM also ruled that the share spells feature allowed the horse to benefit from any Smite spells I cast on myself which further added to its damage.

Second mounted character was a (PHB) Beastmaster Ranger halfling riding a panther mount using a shield and rapier. It felt incredibly underwhelming and I did not enjoy it. To be fair when compared to the previous experience the bar of expectation was set incredibly high.

If I could do a third mounted character I would do Sword/Valor Bard and grab Find Greater Steed with Magical Secrets or play a Straight Paladin but go Oathbreaker this time to mix it up (designate your Find Steed mount as a Fiend and it will benefit from your Aura of Hate!)

[Person_Man]

An alternative way to use the feat is that you can just ride a Medium mount and use the Enlarge spell for outdoor combats. This is another easy Battlesmith trick :smallamused:

Thats an excellent idea. How do you get Enlarge on your spell list? Level dip, or just begging another party member to use and Action and Concentration to cast it? Or is there a Feat or infusion or other magic item I’m forgetting about?

[Psyren]

Thats an excellent idea. How do you get Enlarge on your spell list? Level dip, or just begging another party member to use and Action and Concentration to cast it? Or is there a Feat or infusion or other magic item I’m forgetting about?

It's on the Artificer list as of Tasha's, TCoE pg 12

[RogueJK]

Also available to other mounted classes through racial abilities: Fairies and Duergar can both cast Enlarge/Reduce 1x/day as racial spells, and can use spell slots for further castings.

[Rerem115]

I only ever really played a fully 'mounted' character once, but it was one of the best experiences I had. A large portion of that was due to how our table more or less ditched RAW; the DM had voiced his opinions on RAW and told us that all mounts, controlled and non-controlled, shared their rider's initiative and could freely interweave movement and actions. Knowing this, I made a Beastmaster Ranger using the Revised Ranger UA and had a blast, especially when a quirk of the campaign Awakened my companion.

The mobility was unmatched (doubly so when gifted a spell-sharing boon), and the tactical options it opened up - Do I duck in and out of the front line? Make a rush for the enemy archers? Lead the heavies on a merry chase? Stand boldly in the middle and maximize damage? - they turned every fight into a high-speed game of parkour chess.

I guess that says something about the 5e Mounted Combat rules; they're most game-changing and most fun when you tweak RAW to benefit the ones having to deal with it. :smallbiggrin:

[Person_Man]

It's on the Artificer list as of Tasha's, TCoE pg 12

Sweet. I was looking in the Eberron book and missed it. Thanks.

Also, I don’t know why people complain about them being underpowered. When you consider the additions from Tashas and the subclasses, they have a great list for a half caster. They lack the craziness of high level spells that we’re complaining about here. But thats not a bad thing if you care about game balance.

[Zirconia]

I only ever really played a fully 'mounted' character once, but it was one of the best experiences I had. A large portion of that was due to how our table more or less ditched RAW; the DM had voiced his opinions on RAW and told us that all mounts, controlled and non-controlled, shared their rider's initiative and could freely interweave movement and actions. Knowing this, I made a Beastmaster Ranger using the Revised Ranger UA and had a blast, especially when a quirk of the campaign Awakened my companion.

The mobility was unmatched (doubly so when gifted a spell-sharing boon), and the tactical options it opened up - Do I duck in and out of the front line? Make a rush for the enemy archers? Lead the heavies on a merry chase? Stand boldly in the middle and maximize damage? - they turned every fight into a high-speed game of parkour chess.

I guess that says something about the 5e Mounted Combat rules; they're most game-changing and most fun when you tweak RAW to benefit the ones having to deal with it. :smallbiggrin:

My current DM allows free interweaving of my actions and my mount's for my controlled mount, and so far it seems like a very fair tradeoff. I'm riding a Small character on a Mastiff, low levels. It has been super handy for some fights, but in the latest dungeon, we had to make Athletics checks (Acrobatics not allowed) to go across vine bridges, and I had to spend my Actions Helping my mount to avoid it falling to its doom. Then it got killed from under me by a burrowing critter, and I had to resort to backup weapons instead of my lance. It seemed pretty balanced to me, like when I ran a Wizard in a previous campaign, some fights she totally won the fight with crowd controls or a timely Fireball, other ones she was much less useful (stupid Fiends and their magic resistance!).

[Hurrashane]

Haven't played one, but I want to play one alongside another player:

Beat totem barbarian with the mounted combat feat, moon druid ally with the Sentinel feat. Druid transforms into a mountable animal (bear), barbarian rages and mounts the druid. Any attack against the barbarian the druid gets a reaction attack, any attack against the druid the barbarian can redirect to themself granting the druid a reaction attack.

[Psyren]

Even if your DM doesn't allow action-weaving with the mount, you can always Ready an attack for when it brings you in range. A slightly more complicated maneuver is to have it Ready a move for the start of your turn before it goes, to bring you in range.


Sweet. I was looking in the Eberron book and missed it. Thanks.

No problem, and I have to say, this is one thing I love about the DnDBeyond app :smallbiggrin: At the bottom of every spell entry it has current tags of which list that spell can be found on, even subclass lists!


Also, I don’t know why people complain about them being underpowered. When you consider the additions from Tashas and the subclasses, they have a great list for a half caster. They lack the craziness of high level spells that we’re complaining about here. But thats not a bad thing if you care about game balance.

I think there's some lingering disappointment from a few vocal 3.5 players who want them to still be T1.

Now, I certainly wouldn't mind them having more spell slots, but their round-up-when-multiclassing rule makes splashing in wizard for those very easy.

[Segev]

I've only halfway played with it, because it was an NPC who got a mount when she was in the party, but the DM used the Sidekick rules on the mount, which made the mount significantly tankier. I recommend that to anybody who has their negative experience with a mount come from the mount's fragility.

[kingcheesepants]

I've had a number of wizards who made good use of phantom steed. If you've got the space that's a mount that makes kiting almost trivial, though few maps are going to have the room to do so. Giving a phantom steed to a fighter or barbarian that needs to be in melee is a very good move too. Sure the steed will die to any AoE or enemy that wants to stop the barbarian from dashing around the battlefield but it's a resource free spell and it'll just make the person using it move at half speed for a turn. Not really a big deal considering the benefits.

I've also been in a campaign with a cavalier fighter who used the sidekick rules for his mount. It made the mount significantly tankier and it died very rarely and the fighter was able to go to where he wanted to be most of the time.