Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

[Bilbron]

In TM's latest video, he makes the argument that a rider and mount mix their turns (same moment in initiative order, not separate sequential turns) so that, for example, one could Mount-Move into position, Attack, Mount-Disengage-Move to a different enemy, Attack again.

He makes this argument on the grounds that the phrase "A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it" can ONLY mean that they mix their Action Economy (as described in the above example). According to TM, the "turn that you mount it" is YOUR turn, and can't possibly mean "the mount's turn on the same initiative count" (or else it would say "can move and act even on the initiative count that you mount it").

We had the following exchange in the comments. Is he correct that you can mix rider/mount actions as in the example above? Or am I correct that the rider/mount have separate and sequential turns that occur on the same initiative count?

TM video (cued up to his final specific claim about how it works... back it up if you want to hear his argument): https://youtu.be/o3EBXS54skw?t=1727

Relevant Sage Advice exchange: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/03/14...hare-one-turn/


Brian Francisco
I'm a little confused, as Crawford seems to suggest it follows the same initiative rules as two characters with the same initiative roll, "You pick who goes first". To me that means we can't be taking actions simultaneously, as in the mount would have to resolve its actions and movement before the rider can do anything. Maybe I'm missing another specific.

Treantmonk's Temple
Think about it this way. Let's say we were to go for lunch. You enter the restaurant first, but that doesn't mean you need to enter, eat, and leave before the other one can enter. In the case of controlled mounts, we know there is overlap because the controlled mount rules say that it can "move and act on your turn", but someone is still initiating their action first.

Brian Francisco
@Treantmonk's Temple oh, I think what I was missing is "can move and act even on the turn that you mount it." implies that the turns are happening simultaneously and not successively. Thanks!

D&D 5e Powergamer's Tactics Room
@Treantmonk's Temple "You pick who goes first" is only a meaningful statement if they don't mix their Actions, as I see it. In your example here, picking who goes first is meaningless, yet he said it for a reason.

D&D 5e Powergamer's Tactics Room
@Treantmonk's Temple "It can move and act even on the turn you mount it" could also mean "it acts on your initiative order AFTER you" without mixing the turns, and in fact, I think the fact that JC has been meticulous in clarifying "separate turns, you have to pick which one goes first" confirms that interpreting it otherwise is an error.

Treantmonk's Temple
@D&D 5e Powergamer's Tactics Room It literally can't mean that. If it said "It can move an act even on the initiative count on which you mount it." then it could mean that. Your turn however, is your turn and if you mount the creature on your turn, then "it can move and act even on the turn you mount it" can only mean your turn.

D&D 5e Powergamer's Tactics Room
@Treantmonk's Temple Then why not SAY it can move and act even on "your turn" instead of "on the turn you mount it"? Phrasing it in this way doesn't imply that the mount mixes its Actions into your turn, just on the same turn you act, i.e. the same initiative count. When pointed out that he was unclear, JC EMPHASIZED that "they have separate turns and you have to choose which one goes first". Based on his "clarifications", it seems to me that to JC, "YOUR turn" = your set of Actions; and "THE turn on which you take your set of Actions" = your initiative count.

You basically argue here that the last part of that sentence ("you have to choose which one goes first") is a meaningless technicality that applies to your interpretation as well, as a matter of grammatical necessity, but I would argue that if he meant it as you interpret, then he didn't need to say that part at all. That he did say it meant that he was trying to convey something meaningful, IMO, not adding useless words to describe a grammatical necessity that would apply regardless of intended meaning.

Ultimately, I still think it very ambiguous. I'd much prefer to play under your interpretation, personally... just much cooler and easier, and even if that makes the PC "more powerful", that's not a bad thing, in my book.

Treantmonk's Temple
@D&D 5e Powergamer's Tactics Room "Your turn" and "The turn you mount it" are the same if you mount it on your turn. If the mount takes actions after your turn is over, then it definitely did not take actions on the turn you mounted it. A turn does not refer to an initiative count, I think that's maybe where you are confused.


D&D 5e Powergamer's Tactics Room
@Treantmonk's Temple In that Sage Advice exchange, after stating that the rider and mount share the same initiative count, JC goes on to answer the following question:

@JeremyECrawford Can you choose on each round or do you have to use the same order every round?
— Armando Doval (@armando_doval) April 26, 2017

The initiative rules assume that ties are sorted out when a tie first occurs. But a DM might allow the choice to occur each round. #DnD https://t.co/vqyxMP6coH
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) April 26, 2017

JC clearly believes that it's important as to whether the rider or the mount goes 1st in the initiative order... his answer implies that the game is impacted differently if DMs houserule away from RAW. Yet, if your interpretation were correct, there would be no such impact. The rider would be able to adjust the order of actions any way he likes, choosing to use the mount's Move before or after his own Action from Round to Round, just as he can with his own Move. That JC answered in this way implies that he doesn't think about the rule as you're interpreting it.

This seems to open up the possibility that the phrasing you refer to about "the turn that you mount it" is a "natural language error" that's INTENDED to mean "on the mount's turn on the initiative order that you mount it." (a natural language error of that sort would not be surprising, given the lack of attention to detail present in the mount rules in general, a ruleset they felt deserved three whole scattered paragraphs)

Then, when asked specifically about this in the final exchange that you mentioned in the video ("Seems like you said that you and the controlled mount have the same turn. Does this mean that the rider and mount share a single turn?"), and specifically seeking to resolve the apparent contradiction between his previous two answers, JC responded "A controlled mount has its own turn, but that turn takes place on the same initiative count as the rider’s turn." To me, this is him DENYING that the rider/mount share a turn (in the context of temporal sequence of action) and CLARIFYING that what is meant by the rule is "separate turns on the same initiative count".

In light of this clarification, and the context of his other answers that illuminate his thinking, I don't see how your interpretation is valid. It hinges on a very strict reading of the word "turn", in an "afterthought" section of the rules, after JC was specifically asked about that rule and responded "own turn, same initiative count". The idea that this ACTUALLY means shared/mixed/overlapping turns (temporally) and JC just didn't explain that accurately enough is IMO incorrect. It's much more likely that it's the PHB that didn't explain accurately enough.

[Valmark]

Like TM said the PHB is pretty clear in saying that the controlled mount shares the rider's turn. You can't have that and also have different turns for the rider and the mount.

JC's words aren't official and he's been wrong or contradicted himself in the past. Even the actual SAC has errors- you really shouldn't lean on those to know what is RAW, though in the absence of anything else it's the closest thing to RAI we got (and even then it's not very valid since again there are rules errors).

[MaxWilson]

Like TM said the PHB is pretty clear in saying that the controlled mount shares the rider's turn. You can't have that and also have different turns for the rider and the mount.

JC's words aren't official and he's been wrong or contradicted himself in the past. Even the actual SAC has errors- you really shouldn't lean on those to know what is RAW, though in the absence of anything else it's the closest thing to RAI we got (and even then it's not very valid since again there are rules errors).

I came here to say this exact same thing: Crawford's ruling is that they are separate, but Crawford's ruling isn't credible because the PHB strongly suggests the opposite.

I run it the same way Treantmonk apparently does.

[diplomancer]

The way Treantmonk suggests is FAR more practical, realistic, and useful. It's also RAW. Too powerful? Let's see

Truth is, without the Mounted Combatant feat and/or substantial gold investment, your mount is going to die if you are making good use of it against smart creatures. And if you DID make the substantial gold/feat investment, you SHOULD be able to have an important impact in combat from it. The "separate turns" ruling is a considerable nerf to melee riders, the worst the more attacks he gets.

Tldr; don't be surprised if your melee PCs are always going for the PAM/GWM combination, instead of more diverse feats, if you nerf the playstyles offered by these other feats (I'm ALSO looking at your Shield Master ruling, Mr. Crawford).

[Bilbron]

The way Treantmonk suggests is FAR more practical, realistic, and useful. Too powerful? Let's see

Truth is, without the Mounted Combatant feat and/or substantial gold investment, your mount is going to die if you are making good use of it against smart creatures. And if you DID make the substantial gold/feat investment, you SHOULD be able to have an important impact in combat from it. The "separate turns" ruling is a considerable nerf to melee riders, the worst the more attacks he gets.

I agree that it's better. And I agree that JC tweets aren't official. TM is arguing, however, that JC's tweets are CONSISTENT with the PHB wording. That is, if your table goes by JC rulings, it STILL works the way he interprets it. Which is incorrect, it seems to me.

[MaxWilson]

I agree that it's better. And I agree that JC tweets aren't official. TM is arguing, however, that JC's tweets are CONSISTENT with the PHB wording. That is, if your table goes by JC rulings, it STILL works the way he interprets it. Which is incorrect, it seems to me.

JC's reading is definitely not consistent with the PHB. I didn't get the sense from the sections you quoted that Treantmonk was defending JC's tweet as consistent with the PHB, but whether you're wrong about Treantmonk's opinion about JC's opinion, or Treantmonk is wrong about JC's opinion, either way JC's opinion is not the same as the PHB rule.

[diplomancer]

I agree that it's better. And I agree that JC tweets aren't official. TM is arguing, however, that JC's tweets are CONSISTENT with the PHB wording. That is, if your table goes by JC rulings, it STILL works the way he interprets it. Which is incorrect, it seems to me.

They are consistent with it, because they are (as usual many times with JC) infuriatingly vague*. It's quite common for people to ask direct questions and to get answers that STILL require interpretation. I agree that the most obvious interpretation of JC's tweets is yours. But Treantmonk's interpretation, though a bit forced, is still possible.

* I can see WHY he does it; it's to empower DMs and not have rules lawyering players wielding his tweets as a bludgeon against DMs. But it DOES mean that those discussions tend to be inconclusive.

[MustaKrakish]

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

I have never heard of monsters or characters combining turns according to RAW, and I can't see why mounted combat is the exception here. It is always one act after the other.

So in the mounted combat case, the player with the mount decides who goes first, the character or the mount.

Edit: In my mind if they wanted you to combine turns with your mount, the rule would say: "While mounted your movement change to that of your mount, and you can use a bonus action to dash (or something like that)."

Edit 2: I can also see a situation when the mount acts first and makes its move, then ready a dash action to trigger after the character attacks, and then move again with that readied action.

[diplomancer]

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

I have never heard of monsters or characters combining turns according to RAW, and I can't see why mounted combat is the exception here. It is always one act after the other.

So in the mounted combat case, the player with the mount decides who goes first, the character or the mount.

That's the general rule, yes. The argument here is that the specific rule of Mounted Combatant, specifically "the mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it" (which IS, almost always, YOUR turn) overrides it.

[MustaKrakish]

That's the general rule, yes. The argument here is that the specific rule of Mounted Combatant, specifically "the mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it" (which IS, almost always, YOUR turn) overrides it.

My interpretation here is that: "the mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it" because "The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it." Which is the sentence that opens this section of the rules. And then we return to the rules of initiative and the fact that every creature has its own turn, even if the initiative is tied.

[diplomancer]

My interpretation here is that: "the mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it" because "The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it." Which is the sentence that opens this section of the rules. And then we return to the rules of initiative and the fact that every creature has its own turn, even if the initiative is tied.

So, does your turn (that has already started, since you've mounted the creature) gets interrupted, the mount gets its turn, and then your turn continues? Or does your turn finishes and then the mount gets it's turn immediately afterwards? In both these cases, the mount would not be moving and acting on the turn that you mount it, but on a separate turn (that has the same initiative count).

[Chronic]

Let's be honest, if it doesn't work like TM says, it would be bad, considering it require a feat to be remotely efficient in terms of action economy.

[MustaKrakish]

So, does your turn (that has already started, since you've mounted the creature) gets interrupted, the mount gets its turn, and then your turn continues? Or does your turn finishes and then the mount gets it's turn immediately afterwards? In both these cases, the mount would not be moving and acting on the turn that you mount it, but on a separate turn (that has the same initiative count).

Oh... wow. Now I get it. Hmm... it feels like a mistake to me. Seriously. I would guess that they meant "the round that you mount it" rather than turn. This is how I would house rule it to be consistent with the rest of the rules. But I totally get the point here now. Thank you :)

[diplomancer]

Oh... wow. Now I get it. Hmm... it feels like a mistake to me. Seriously. I would guess that they meant "the round that you mount it" rather than turn. This is how I would house rule it to be consistent with the rest of the rules. But I totally get the point here now. Thank you :)

It's quite possible that it WAS a mistake. But, if it was, it was a serendipitous one, since the rules work much more smoothly this way, and it makes Mounted Combat a far more useable thing.

[Seclora]

I usually run mounts as acting on the rider's turn, but only able to take their movement and require a Bonus Action from the rider to use the Dash, Dodge, or Disengage actions. Killing a mount is easy enough, and most AoE spells will do it on accident, so they're safest if kept out of combat. At low levels, a horse is overpowered, at higher levels a horse is a liability.

And that's fine, the biggest balance to this is expense really. A warhorse costs 400 gold, and plate barding costs as much or more than a rare quality item. And that's exactly how a mount should be used, like a magic item that gives you extra movement and Bonus Action Dash or Disengage but can be destroyed easily. Nothing about a mount makes you incomparably better than a Monk, Rogue, or Goblin.
If your Ranger or Artificer want to use their companion as a mount, it makes the class stronger, but also puts them into more vulnerable positions if they get ahead of the party. The same could be said of the Find Steed spell, hitherto fairly weak. Taking the Mounted Combatant feat is a commitment to a playstyle, and should be rewarding, not punishing.

So, I dunno, maybe let mounted combat be playable?

[da newt]

IMO RAW is a mess for Mounted Combat - the rule that every creature has it's own turn and can only act on it's turn (except reactions and held actions) breaks its functionality and violates realistic synergy of mount and rider. Therefor I rule that mounts act on the rider's turn when controlled (and I also rule familiars act on their summoner's turn too).


TLDR - I house rule the mount and rider act together on one combined turn.

[Valmark]

JC's reading is definitely not consistent with the PHB. I didn't get the sense from the sections you quoted that Treantmonk was defending JC's tweet as consistent with the PHB, but whether you're wrong about Treantmonk's opinion about JC's opinion, or Treantmonk is wrong about JC's opinion, either way JC's opinion is not the same as the PHB rule.

This. Didn't get that feeling either (Treatmonk doesn't even mention JC's tweets, do they?) But regardless JC's opinion wouldn't be correct (I guess the part where Treatmonk supports JC would be wrong too?).

Let's be honest, if it doesn't work like TM says, it would be bad, considering it require a feat to be remotely efficient in terms of action economy.

This. I've tried controlled and uncontrolled mounted combat and unless your mount is capable of actually doing something good with their actions (as a practical example a wyvern as a mount staying in melee and attacking together with my PC) it becomes awful if you need to attack and to move with separate turns.

If the controlled mount had had separate turns too it would've been just as bad- if not worst, depending on intelligence and abilities of the mount.

[Tanarii]

He's wrong. Either mount follows rider, or rider follows mount.

[Valmark]

He's wrong. Either mount follows rider, or rider follows mount.

You may want to explain why you think that instead of just saying it- the rules say the opposite of this, at least when the rider mounts on their turn (I don't know if it's possible out of turn).

[sophontteks]

Mounted combat is a mess RAW. The whole of it is writhe with contradictions and stuff that doesn't make sense. If we gonna talk about what RAW actually is, this'll be a very long thread.

[strangebloke]

Clearly the more important question is, can I, a halfling, mount my fighter friend immediately after his turn ends to give him a second turn?

[NorthernPhoenix]

The mounted combat rules are sadly a bit of a mess, but my personal DM take is that anything that encourages silly or uncool play (such as repeatedly dismounting and re-mounting) i will come down on like a ton of bricks, while anything that encourages cool mounted combat like you'd expect in a fantasy story, i'll be quite lenient about, since doing "normal" mounted combat has enough issues as is without me trying to be too strict about it.

[Mellack]

Clearly the more important question is, can I, a halfling, mount my fighter friend immediately after his turn ends to give him a second turn?

Since that only works with a controlled mount, your fighter would both have to have specific mount training, and have an intelligence below 3. So if you train your especially dumb fighter friend, go for it.


On pg. 198 of the PHB it states;
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.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The argument here is that the specific rule of Mounted Combatant, specifically "the mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it" (which IS, almost always, YOUR turn) overrides it.

The tricky part of the "can act on the turn you mount" clause is when a creature can move outside of their initiative order.

For example a Talenta Plains Scout Rogue that is standing next to their clawfoot dinosaur mount, could theoretically use their Skirmisher ability to mount their Clawfoot dinosaur as a Reaction, if a creature ends their turn next to the Scout.

Since the specific statute quoted above, supersedes the general initiative rules, the clawfoot dinosaur could act...even though it is technically neither the dinosaur's nor the Scout's initiative turn.

A Battle Master with the Maneuvering Attack maneuver could enable this same 'Reaction Mount and Move' for any PC standing next to a mount.

Is a Reaction Mount and Move overpowered?

While this is a very strong combination, it is also very flavorful and cool, and would allow it.

*note: multiple responses were posted while I was writing this on a mobile, my apologies if it is replication of content*

[Damon_Tor]

Clearly the more important question is, can I, a halfling, mount my fighter friend immediately after his turn ends to give him a second turn?

That might actually depend on how low his int score is.

I'm serious.

Because by RAW "intelligent creatures" are always uncontrolled mounts. No hard and fast definition of what level of intelligence is required.

[Valmark]

The tricky part of the "can act on the turn you mount" clause is when a creature can move outside of their initiative order.

For example a Talenta Plains Scout Rogue that is standing next to their clawfoot dinosaur mount, could theoretically use their Skirmisher ability to mount their Clawfoot dinosaur as a Reaction, if a creature ends their turn next to the Scout.

Since the specific statute quoted above, supersedes the general initiative rules, the clawfoot dinosaur could act...even though it is technically neither the dinosaur's nor the Scout's initiative turn.

A Battle Master with the Maneuvering Attack maneuver could enable this same 'Reaction Mount and Move' for any PC standing next to a mount.

Is a Reaction Mount and Move overpowered?

While this is a very strong combination, it is also very flavorful and cool, and would allow it.

*note: multiple responses were posted while I was writing this on a mobile, my apologies if it is replication of content*

The mount wouldn't be able to act. If the intiative matches the rider's and the mount can move/act on their turn it doesn't mean they can act and move on somebody else's turn (that isn't their rider's).

Although it's niche enough that I'd see no problems allowing it too for fun's sake.

[Bilbron]

JC's reading is definitely not consistent with the PHB. I didn't get the sense from the sections you quoted that Treantmonk was defending JC's tweet as consistent with the PHB, but whether you're wrong about Treantmonk's opinion about JC's opinion, or Treantmonk is wrong about JC's opinion, either way JC's opinion is not the same as the PHB rule.

He makes this clear in the video, and in the following comment:

Treantmonk's Temple
@D&D 5e Powergamer's Tactics Room It's true my interpretation requires that the word "turn" be used as per the mechanics laid out in the PHB. I don't think that's too technical. I would also point out (and I mention this in the video), that with my interpretation, all of JC's tweets and comments in the interview are consistent.

He also responds to my point about how JC clearly doesn't share his interpretation because JC emphasizes the important of choosing whether the rider or mount goes first (that RAW the order stays the same once decided, but that DMs could house-rule that rider/mount can switch order from round to round):

Treantmonk's Temple
@D&D 5e Powergamer's Tactics Room Now I agree that JC seems to think that it's important to say that the turns overlap and one of them starts first, as to why that's important, I don't know the answer. Though even in the video, where he is very clearly saying that the mount and rider coordinate actions, he is very clear that they have separate turns, and they overlap rather than occur at the same time, so it's not like he's changing his position on that with the tweets.

TM "doesn't know" why JC makes this distinction, but I do... it's because JC assumes that it's separate, sequential turns. To claim that JC's comments are "consistent" with his interpretation but hand wave this point away is very clearly confirmation bias, IMO.

[MaxWilson]

To claim that JC's comments are "consistent" with his interpretation but hand wave this point away is very clearly confirmation bias, IMO.

Looks kind of like a cognitive error, yes, but without watching the JC video you guys are debating it's hard to be sure. I'm not going to watch it because I don't find JC credible in the first place.

[diplomancer]

He makes this clear in the video, and in the following comment:

Treantmonk's Temple
@D&D 5e Powergamer's Tactics Room It's true my interpretation requires that the word "turn" be used as per the mechanics laid out in the PHB. I don't think that's too technical. I would also point out (and I mention this in the video), that with my interpretation, all of JC's tweets and comments in the interview are consistent.

He also responds to my point about how JC clearly doesn't share his interpretation because JC emphasizes the important of choosing whether the rider or mount goes first (that RAW the order stays the same once decided, but that DMs could house-rule that rider/mount can switch order from round to round):

Treantmonk's Temple
@D&D 5e Powergamer's Tactics Room Now I agree that JC seems to think that it's important to say that the turns overlap and one of them starts first, as to why that's important, I don't know the answer. Though even in the video, where he is very clearly saying that the mount and rider coordinate actions, he is very clear that they have separate turns, and they overlap rather than occur at the same time, so it's not like he's changing his position on that with the tweets.

TM "doesn't know" why JC makes this distinction, but I do... it's because JC assumes that it's separate, sequential turns. To claim that JC's comments are "consistent" with his interpretation but hand wave this point away is very clearly confirmation bias, IMO.

If they overlap then they cannot be separate and sequential.

[Bilbron]

If they overlap then they cannot be separate and sequential.

They can if you say "overlap" to mean "same initiative order". And there is some grounds to believe that's what he meant, specifically his many statements/clarifications that "they have their own turns on the same initiative count" and that "you must choose whether the rider or mount goes first, and you can't change that order without a house-rule."