Is Treantmonk right or wrong about Mounted Combat?

[MaxWilson]

Kind of a skew point here, but I also think its ridiculous when people bring up examples like "Ten ettins in an open field." Why would Ettins, powerful melee creatures who are (somewhat) intelligent, choose to set upon an enemy that's clearly faster than them? Why would they gravitate to open featureless plains where their (somewhat) slow speed would make it difficult for them to use any of their advantages? What are they even eating in this context?

"Featureless plain" is just a nasty way of saying "open field," which is most of the world outside of dungeons. For example, ten Ettins moving in formation towards a planned rendezvous with other monsters may not LITERALLY be in a featureless plain, but they're not near anything that makes the situation DIFFERENT from an open field either. Notably, they're not in a labyrinth that makes a melee opponent uncertain of their positioning and afraid of being encircled. There may be some cottages nearby, maybe a grove of trees, some fields of crops, some areas of difficult terrain (loose soil), maybe even a low stone wall between one field and a neighbor's field, but tactics that work in an open field will still work essentially unchanged in this scenario--describing them in detail is just irrelevant detail.

"Open field" is an Internet simplification, but if you want to show that it's an unfair simplification you need to prove that the Ettins will destroy Bob the mounted paladin in, say, a Wal-Mart parking lot if Wal-Mart was a solid rock instead of a hollow building.

A far more realistic encounter would have the Ettin inside a cave or fortress, perhaps being used as a guard-beast by an orc tribe. Give the Ettin some wolf-riding, net-wielding goblin allies. Heck, at least have them in a hilly forest. A DM who has "ten ettins in an open field" is a lazy, probably inexperienced GM.

If the Ettins can never emerge from their fortress without getting massacred, their influence on the surrounding area is basically null. You have to be able to fight without relying on fixed fortifications if you want to project power.

A hilly forest will make no difference to Bob on his Pegasus. It's tactically indistinguishable from an open field.

[Segev]

If the Ettins can never emerge from their fortress without getting massacred, their influence on the surrounding area is basically null. You have to be able to fight without relying on fixed fortifications if you want to project power.

A hilly forest will make no difference to Bob on his Pegasus. It's tactically indistinguishable from an open field.

"Forest" implies a canopy and trees; these complicate both flying at near-ground-level and attacking from overhead.

And it's not that the ettins get massacred if they leave their fortress. It's that they don't go picking a fight with a flying pegasus-rider out in the open. And they STILL can take steps to maneuver if he harasses them.

Frankly, "Bob on a Pegasus" should be using archery to attack them, which makes this less a problem of being mounted and more a problem of flight.

[Sherlockpwns]

I assume you're exaggerating a bit for comedic effect, but even removing hyperbole, this is not really accurate. If you're facing a field full of enemies, the action deficit WILL get you, even with this "overpowered" dashing and disengaging mount. Little prevents the enemies from moving TO YOU unless your party is helping control them. Even if they're clumped up together, they can spread out and force engagement where there's no place to retreat to that leaves you out of movement range for one or more of them. And then there are ranged attacks - the same thing that's used against a flying foe who keeps dropping things or using ranged attacks on you.

It's a GOOD tactic, but no better than a monk or barbarian with their higher speeds. Especially if either has Mobility.

I mean, it IS accurate. You're assuming the player is using melee on horseback, they can use cantrips and 1d4 the things to death if they wanted to. Or just have a Lance. But it was hyperbole of course. And similarly to the person who asks "Why they'd be in an open field" - you're also assuming that there is some kind of ambush scenario or something. Maybe the Ettins are just traders going from point A to point B and the PCs are the villains who are just murdering them on the road for their sacks of grain. I don't know, it was a dumb scenario to suggest that there are situations where mounted combat can allow for one person soloing a large group. And yeah as long as you move 5ft faster than your opponent anyone can do the ranged thing, but its a lot easier when you move 2x the speed of them. Only with simultaneous turns does a reach weapon allow you to hit someone and get away and still have enough movement that they can't attack back.

Why wouldn't you close the scene as soon as everyone is bored because Bob is clearly going to win?

Don't roll dice when the outcome isn't in doubt. If these Ettins are too stupid to ready grapples, play dead, envelope Bob from multiple directions, throw their clubs, or do anything at all except die in the same old way for fifty rounds straight, then the outcome isn't in doubt. If they ARE smart enough to do that eventually then Bob is going to have a nasty round 10+ when his Pegasus suddenly gets grappled in the middle of his attack run (Pegasi have relatively Athletics compared to Ettins) and falls out of the sky and lands prone, and then ten Ettins run up and whack the Pegasus and Bob to death with their clubs.

Is this joyful scenario really something you, gentle readers, want to structure your rules to prevent? Does one really want to interpret RAW in such a way that Bob doesn't even attempt melee in the first place but just pings away with Eldritch Blast from standoff distance because the DM insists that mounts must go before or after the rider's turn instead of during it? Come on. Melee has a tough enough time already staying relevant in 5E.

I should not have used a hypothetical scenario apparently. Bob can win this fight, even if the Ettins are smart, as long as he outranged an improvised weapon and has the ammo (or cantrips) to do it. Why would a DM run an encounter like this? Well, my original point is some canned campaigns HAVE open field encounters (I can think of several). So the DM either has to rearrange this encounter to be more interesting, not run it, or run it knowing that it's "Bob's time to shine" and stop rolling once he's had his fun. There's nothing wrong with any of these 3 options, but the point is it does require some DM thought while an "on foot" party is not likely to have this issue and the encounter may be runnable without any major adjustments.



This is all in the context of "What do the rules say" and I still think its pretty clear that the rules say you and your mount can't move during the same turn (under the guise of that only one creature takes an action at once unless specifically said otherwise), but is also one of the times where the RAW are SO awkward that it's more fun to ignore them and do something else, just know that in doing so may require other adjustments by the DM. Like come on, mounted combat rules are probably up there on the list of unsatisfying right next to disarmed opponents. (And yes there are ways to make it work, but you have to like... really go out of your way to make disarming worthwhile).

Simple as that really. I'd never run mounted combat RAW as the DM personally, but some people prefer strict RAW or play AL and may be forced to. And again, even with the RAW rules designing a mounted combatant is still 100% viable and strong enough that it isn't a trap feat or build in my opinion.

And none of us have even gotten to the stupid question of "which square is the PC in while mounted" which is its own 20 page thread to argue. Mounted combat is a mess in 5e, though frankly has always been a mess. And why are horses spherical!? :)

[MaxWilson]

"Forest" implies a canopy and trees; these complicate both flying at near-ground-level and attacking from overhead.

Maybe in real life that would be true, but in the 5E ruleset, anywhere a Large Ettin can go at 40' speed, a Large Pegasus can go faster at 90' flying speed.

And it's not that the ettins get massacred if they leave their fortress. It's that they don't go picking a fight with a flying pegasus-rider out in the open. And they STILL can take steps to maneuver if he harasses them.

Frankly, "Bob on a Pegasus" should be using archery to attack them, which makes this less a problem of being mounted and more a problem of flight.

The burden of proof is on those complaining about "open field" simplifications to demonstrate that the simplification is losing a vital element. When the ettins are a mile away from their fortress, what specifically are they going to do that they couldn't do in an open field, and what terrain assumptions do they need in order to achieve it?

[Tanarii]

And none of us have even gotten to the stupid question of "which square is the PC in while mounted" which is its own 20 page thread to argue.

Ugh yeah. At one point I could have sworn it was detailed, but then I realized I was mixing up 3e rules.

[strangebloke]

"Featureless plain" is just a nasty way of saying "open field," which is most of the world outside of dungeons. For example, ten Ettins moving in formation towards a planned rendezvous with other monsters may not LITERALLY be in a featureless plain, but they're not near anything that makes the situation DIFFERENT from an open field either. Notably, they're not in a labyrinth that makes a melee opponent uncertain of their positioning and afraid of being encircled. There may be some cottages nearby, maybe a grove of trees, some fields of crops, some areas of difficult terrain (loose soil), maybe even a low stone wall between one field and a neighbor's field, but tactics that work in an open field will still work essentially unchanged in this scenario--describing them in detail is just irrelevant detail.

"Open field" is an Internet simplification, but if you want to show that it's an unfair simplification you need to prove that the Ettins will destroy Bob the mounted paladin in, say, a Wal-Mart parking lot if Wal-Mart was a solid rock instead of a hollow building.

If the Ettins can never emerge from their fortress without getting massacred, their influence on the surrounding area is basically null. You have to be able to fight without relying on fixed fortifications if you want to project power.

A hilly forest will make no difference to Bob on his Pegasus. It's tactically indistinguishable from an open field.

First of all, its perfectly possible for a monster to be relevant without leaving their lair (much) and I expressed two examples of this: An orc tribe that uses an Ettin as a guard beast inside their fortress and an Ettin who rolled up to a goblin camp and intimidated the chiefs into keeping him fed. Even in circumstances where they are solo monsters and they do need to travel, they're usually going to be doing so at night where their darkvision gives them an advantage over humans and they can't easily be attacked from great distances.

Secondly, good encounter design means using monsters in ways that are interesting and nontrivial to solve. Ettins might be trivial opponents if you come across them migrating to some rendezvous point, but that's never an encounter I'd intentionally design because bluntly that's an incredibly boring encounter. The players can either kite them to death trivially or they can't and its suddenly an awful adjusted CR 21 encounter. The players might create such an encounter for themselves as the result of careful planning, but that's something else entirely. Encounters should be designed to an extent with the abilities of the characters in mind.

I don't think that the ettins beat a guy on a pegasus, I just think that really min-maxed encounters like this aren't very persuasive.

Uh anyway, I don't disagree with anything substantive you've said about the rest of the thread. Ranged damage is comparable to melee damage but the former both allows for kiting and counters kiting. Giving characters access to really powerful movement options like free 120 foot movement centralizes the game around kiting to an even greater degree than it already, and mandating 3e-style atomic movement (move-then-attack or attack-then-move but never move-attack-move without tons of feat support) widens this divide even further.

[MaxWilson]

I should not have used a hypothetical scenario apparently. (A) Bob can win this fight, even if the Ettins are smart, as long as he outranged an improvised weapon and has the ammo (or cantrips) to do it. Why would a DM run an encounter like this? Well, my original point is some canned campaigns HAVE open field encounters (I can think of several). So the DM either has to rearrange this encounter to be more interesting, not run it, or run it knowing that it's "Bob's time to shine" and stop rolling once he's had his fun. There's nothing wrong with any of these 3 options, but the point is it does require some DM thought while an "on foot" party is not likely to have this issue and the encounter may be runnable without any major adjustments.

This is all in the context of "What do the rules say" and (B) I still think its pretty clear that the rules say you and your mount can't move during the same turn ((C) under the guise of that only one creature takes an action at once unless specifically said otherwise), but is also one of the times where the RAW are SO awkward that it's more fun to ignore them and do something else, just know that in doing so may require other adjustments by the DM. Like come on, mounted combat rules are probably up there on the list of unsatisfying right next to disarmed opponents. (And yes there are ways to make it work, but you have to like... really go out of your way to make disarming worthwhile).

Simple as that really. I'd never run mounted combat RAW as the DM personally, but some people prefer strict RAW or play AL and may be forced to. And again, even with the RAW rules designing a mounted combatant is still 100% viable and strong enough that it isn't a trap feat or build in my opinion.

And none of us have even gotten to the stupid question of "which square is the PC in while mounted" which is its own 20 page thread to argue. Mounted combat is a mess in 5e, though frankly has always been a mess. And why are horses spherical!? :)

(A) I agree, and that was part of my point--letting Bob and his mount both act on Bob's turn per PHB rules makes the scenario more interesting because it tempts Bob into trying to kill more Ettins more quickly (melee), which increases the opportunity for the Ettins to turn the tables if Bob gets complacent and overextends. Minimizing the disparity between melee and ranged attacks is actively good for the game in this case. The RAW for mounted combat are stupid, but if you're going to tweak them, tweak them in a way which nerfs mounted ranged combat as hard as melee or harder.

(B) I think the opposite is true, and if by (C) you're referring to Xanathar's rules on simultaneous effects (which is the only thing I can think of that even comes close to saying that only one creature can take an action at a time), that still wouldn't establish that a creature cannot act on another creature's turn (and clearly they can sometimes because there's precedent), nor would it establish that the PHB explicitly saying your mount can act on your turn isn't an exception that beats the general rule.

I mean, it doesn't matter anyway because you've already said you'd run things the way I think is RAW and not the way you think is RAW, but just for the record, I don't think your argument (C) is clear, and as written it's not remotely persuasive.

I don't think that the ettins beat a guy on a pegasus, (D) I just think that really min-maxed encounters like this aren't very persuasive.

Uh anyway, I don't disagree with anything substantive you've said about the rest of the thread. Ranged damage is comparable to melee damage but the former both allows for kiting and counters kiting. (E) Giving characters access to really powerful movement options like free 120 foot movement centralizes the game around kiting to an even greater degree than it already, and mandating 3e-style atomic movement (move-then-attack or attack-then-move but never move-attack-move without tons of feat support) widens this divide even further.

(D) All I'm trying to say is that it's unfair to equate "open field" with "featureless plain." All "open field engagement" really means is "not fighting from behind fixed defensive positions". If someone says "open field" it's totally fair to say "if there are trees nearby then XYZ can happen, assuming you're not talking about a literally featureless plain."

(E) I think both you and I would both be happiest with a rule that just said "while mounted on a controlled mount you can use your mount's speed instead of your own, and you can cause your mount to Dash or Disengage by spending your own action". The gameworld logic involved is that a rider has to do actual work with his leg muscles to when a horse is galloping--what the horse supplies is extra speed, not freedom from exertion.

[HPisBS]

It's not like there isn't precedent for multiple creatures acting on the same turn.

Sure: swarms. Swarms are multiple creatures acting as one.

And what is mounted combat supposed to represent if not multiple creatures acting as one?

[Sherlockpwns]

(B) I think the opposite is true, and if by (C) you're referring to Xanathar's rules on simultaneous effects (which is the only thing I can think of that even comes close to saying that only one creature can take an action at a time), that still wouldn't establish that a creature cannot act on another creature's turn (and clearly they can sometimes because there's precedent), nor would it establish that the PHB explicitly saying your mount can act on your turn isn't an exception that beats the general rule.

Which precedent? There are a lot of pages in the books to consider, but I am struggling to think of a single instance where this is written as a thing that you can do without specifically having it called out as an exception with its own very specific rules of when and why you can act at the same time. At the core D&D is a turn based game, so to me that means everything is turn based (even if it makes little sense like mounted combat) unless specified it isn't. I'm totally open to the idea it is there and I missed it, I just can't think of any examples other than the actual one we're debating. Let alone what was intended when the PHB came out before any other books (nothing specifically erratas mounted combat I believe).

[MaxWilson]

Which precedent? There are a lot of pages in the books to consider, but I am struggling to think of a single instance where this is written as a thing that you can do without specifically having it called out as an exception with its own very specific rules of when and why you can act at the same time.

You can't think of a time when it's explicitly spelled out without being explicitly spelled out?

I'm just saying that things like Simulacrum exist ("it obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat"), so clearly acting on someone else's turn is possible. I wouldn't call that "specifically having it called out as an exception with its own very specific rules of when and why you can act at the same time". It just says "acting on your turn in combat," as if sharing a turn were no big deal in the first place, just a way to keep the game simple. Ditto for mounts. The PHB gives zero indication that your mount SHOULDN'T act on your turn, and one sentence indicating that it should.

P. S. Giant Insect is also worded similarly to Simulacrum. True Polymorph just says "It acts on each of your turns."

[Tanarii]

Ditto for mounts. The PHB gives zero indication that your mount SHOULDN'T act on your turn, and one sentence indicating that it should.

It gives one sentence clearly indicating it shouldn't act on your turn (the one about changing initiative to match yours) and one that can possibly be read to indicate it should, if and only if you ignore the first sentence.

If it acts on your turn, it doesn't have its own initiative count to change to match yours.

[Sherlockpwns]

You can't think of a time when it's explicitly spelled out without being explicitly spelled out?

I'm just saying that things like Simulacrum exist ("it obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat"), so clearly acting on someone else's turn is possible. I wouldn't call that "specifically having it called out as an exception with its own very specific rules of when and why you can act at the same time". It just says "acting on your turn in combat," as if sharing a turn were no big deal in the first place, just a way to keep the game simple. Ditto for mounts. The PHB gives zero indication that your mount SHOULDN'T act on your turn, and one sentence indicating that it should.

P. S. Giant Insect is also worded similarly to Simulacrum. True Polymorph just says "It acts on each of your turns."

That was what I was looking for. An instance in the PHB where something gets to go on your turn. Like I said, couldn't think of one, didn't say they didn't exist. Well, I'll concede that the precedent is there and that 5e should have more errata than it does to clarify stuff like this. You'd think it would be someone's job, lol.

[Valmark]

It gives one sentence clearly indicating it shouldn't act on your turn (the one about changing initiative to match yours) and one that can possibly be read to indicate it should, if and only if you ignore the first sentence.

If it acts on your turn, it doesn't have its own initiative count to change to match yours.

Except that it does have it's own initiative count normally- it's not like it acts with you if you don't mount it. It still needs an initiative if you dismount.

[MaxWilson]

It gives one sentence clearly indicating it shouldn't act on your turn (the one about changing initiative to match yours)

You're going to have to unpack the logic for me there.

Say I'm a new player. I read that sentence. How do I get from "its initiative changes to match yours" to "clearly it doesn't act on my turn despite what the next sentence says!"?

[Sherlockpwns]

I don’t think anything about mounted combat is clear to a new player, lol.

I think the basis of the argument is every instance of simultaneous turns is a creature without an initiative. That’s my take on the argument. Anyway, at best it’s totally unclear and I’m left sad that this will just have to vary from table to table.

[diplomancer]

It gives one sentence clearly indicating it shouldn't act on your turn (the one about changing initiative to match yours) and one that can possibly be read to indicate it should, if and only if you ignore the first sentence.

If it acts on your turn, it doesn't have its own initiative count to change to match yours.

Interesting. If I were to describe that paragraph, it would be the entire opposite description; it has one sentence indicating that it acts on your turn, and another that COULD be read as it acts entirely separately, but only if you ignore the other (and THIS sentence about changing initiative is necessary to adjudicate corner cases, like what happens if you dismount or are dismounted; does it go back to its original initiative? No, its initiative is now the same as yours. It also clarifies that, though the mount now has a turn that is simultaneous to your own, it does not have another-separate- turn on its own previous initiative).

[Segev]

Frankly, if Bob the Pegasus Marauder is a thing, one would expect the Traveling Merchant Ettins to carry ranged weapons.

[Osuniev]

Little prevents the enemies from moving TO YOU unless your party is helping control them.

Well, if your Horse is Dashing, you can do 36 m - sorry, 120 feet - a turn. Meaning you can be out of range of any melee attack (and out of short range of many thrown weapons !).

With a Reach weapon, you can be 65 feet away, then come to the enemy, hit, then go back 65 feet away. If the enemy comes to you, it makes it even easier.

If you haven't got a reach weapon, you can still do this most turns by having your mount Disengage instead of Dash, provided you start slightly closer (then every time the enemy moves towards you, they only make it easier to kite them next turn)



Using the STRICT ruling of "non-simultaneous turns", Mounts still provide most of this advantage, but you need to forego extra attack to do so (since you hit during your mount's turn). It makes thematic sense to me that it's harder to do three attacks WHILE RUSHING PAST an enemy.

You can still of course use your own turn to attack. The mount is by now means useless : for a sum that's quite affordable by most lvl 5 characters, you now have a 60 feet speed and ignore all Attacks of Opportunity, with the option of Dashing AND attacking on the same run.

Sure, mounts are easy to kill (slightly harder if you pay for barding), which makes for an useful money sink.

(For the record, I see how the rule could be read two different ways, I was just defending how the strict reading doesn't make mounts useless at all, and in fact provide a MAJOR tactical advantage).

[Segev]

Well, if your Horse is Dashing, you can do 36 m - sorry, 120 feet - a turn. Meaning you can be out of range of any melee attack (and out of short range of many thrown weapons !).

With a Reach weapon, you can be 65 feet away, then come to the enemy, hit, then go back 65 feet away. If the enemy comes to you, it makes it even easier.

If you haven't got a reach weapon, you can still do this most turns by having your mount Disengage instead of Dash, provided you start slightly closer (then every time the enemy moves towards you, they only make it easier to kite them next turn)



Using the STRICT ruling of "non-simultaneous turns", Mounts still provide most of this advantage, but you need to forego extra attack to do so (since you hit during your mount's turn). It makes thematic sense to me that it's harder to do three attacks WHILE RUSHING PAST an enemy.

You can still of course use your own turn to attack. The mount is by now means useless : for a sum that's quite affordable by most lvl 5 characters, you now have a 60 feet speed and ignore all Attacks of Opportunity, with the option of Dashing AND attacking on the same run.

Sure, mounts are easy to kill (slightly harder if you pay for barding), which makes for an useful money sink.

(For the record, I see how the rule could be read two different ways, I was just defending how the strict reading doesn't make mounts useless at all, and in fact provide a MAJOR tactical advantage).

Unless the enemy are very cooperatively staying grouped up together, they can ensure that you cannot keep dashing in and out without winding up in movement range of one of them at some point when your turn ends. Even dashing away, themselves, forces your mount now to dash just to get back into melee with them. And this, of course, assumes the enemy have no ranged attacks. I am also granting the assumption of a reach weapon while none of the enemies have the same.

I don't know how much of a house rule this would be, but I could see a DM house ruling that a readied action could save up some or all of your movement, as well. I don't THINK that the RAW permit this, admittedly, so I'm "house rule fixing" something that you assert is broken by a rules change from the "strict RAW" (and I certainly see your argument, even if I don't entirely agree), but I think that the increased freedom would benefit everybody equally. It makes sense that if you want to prepare to attack somebody when they ride up to attack you, you could take the five foot step to make the lunge when they come close. If you're going to ready an action to attack somebody who attacks one of your allies, having movement to move up to them is fair, I think. But, of course, this may be a whole other thread topic to discuss what might break with that rule.

[Osuniev]

I agree that your opponents are not completely prevented of ways to counter this (especially if you don't have a Reach weapon), it is still a very powerful option in almost all outdoors encounter :)

(and yes, ennemies can move AWAY from you, but if they do, you can catch up easily, and that means they aren't hitting anyone then :) )

I guess the best option for your opponent would be to Ready an action to SHOVE you/your mount when you get close. I tried it a few times with my all-mounted party, but so far the Str(Athletics) checks of my monsters have all failed.

[Segev]

I agree that your opponents are not completely prevented of ways to counter this (especially if you don't have a Reach weapon), it is still a very powerful option in almost all outdoors encounter :)

(and yes, ennemies can move AWAY from you, but if they do, you can catch up easily, and that means they aren't hitting anyone then :) )

I guess the best option for your opponent would be to Ready an action to SHOVE you/your mount when you get close. I tried it a few times with my all-mounted party, but so far the Str(Athletics) checks of my monsters have all failed.

Using ranged weapons is also a powerful option in outdoor encounters.

I don't see a problem with "a powerful option." It isn't so powerful as to be uncounterable nor mandatory, and it isn't universally applicable. (Note that "outdoor encounters" are rarely more than 70% of a campaign and are sometimes less than 10% of a campaign.)

[Witty Username]

I agree that your opponents are not completely prevented of ways to counter this (especially if you don't have a Reach weapon), it is still a very powerful option in almost all outdoors encounter :)

(and yes, ennemies can move AWAY from you, but if they do, you can catch up easily, and that means they aren't hitting anyone then :) )

I guess the best option for your opponent would be to Ready an action to SHOVE you/your mount when you get close. I tried it a few times with my all-mounted party, but so far the Str(Athletics) checks of my monsters have all failed.

Why not use monsters that keep up with mounts/mounted monsters?
Merchants will have transportation, Gith ride dragons, the manticore has good speed and ranged attacks for kiting.

I think an all mounted party would love a cavalry battle.

[Osuniev]

I do not have a problem with Mounted Combat ! We play it by (my strict-reading of) RAW, and I'm indeed planning a cavalry battle :) . My PCs are enjoying their mounts (they have names and traits ^^), the Paladin just bought a Warhorse, and the Dwarf Cavalier has been nicknamed "the Death on Four Legs".
The Beastmaster Gnome is enjoying her extra-flexibility from mounting her Giant Badger. (Which DOES act on her turn, as per PHB, unlike all other mounts).


I was mentioning all of this as a counterpoint to people who said "mounts are a waste of money if you separate turns between Rider and Mount". My PCs disagree :) .

[diplomancer]

I do not have a problem with Mounted Combat ! We play it by (my strict-reading of) RAW, and I'm indeed planning a cavalry battle :) . My PCs are enjoying their mounts (they have names and traits ^^), the Paladin just bought a Warhorse, and the Dwarf Cavalier has been nicknamed "the Death on Four Legs".
The Beastmaster Gnome is enjoying her extra-flexibility from mounting her Giant Badger. (Which DOES act on her turn, as per PHB, unlike all other mounts).


I was mentioning all of this as a counterpoint to people who said "mounts are a waste of money if you separate turns between Rider and Mount". My PCs disagree :) .

Do the enemies target mounts? If they don't, as a matter of course, as the most vulnerable targets, than obviously it's not a waste of money.

If players are taking the mounted combatant feat (which is really the only way of making mounts more durable) even with the separate turns ruling, I guess your campaign has a lot of open field combats.

[Osuniev]

Do the enemies target mounts? If they don't, as a matter of course, as the most vulnerable targets, than obviously it's not a waste of money.

If players are taking the mounted combatant feat (which is really the only way of making mounts more durable) even with the separate turns ruling, I guess your campaign has a lot of open field combats

My Dwarf cavalier took the Mounted Combattant feat at level 4, which he often used whilst riding the Bear-shaped Druid before he bought a horse.
My Gnome Beastmaster just bought Mithral Armor Splint for her Giant Badger.
My Wizard just picked up Phantom Steed after the death of her horse, and she's roleplaying her guilt.

The other are contemplating buying Barding armor for their mounts, although I'd expect the Paladin will probably learn Find Steed soon.

However, I DON'T believe attacking the Mounts is always more logical for the monsters. At their level (5) killing their Riding Horses often require an average of, what, 2.3 actions for the monsters ? If it's not killed round 1, having the mount Disengage pushes that closer to 3 actions.

From the monsters point of view (I'm assuming tactical hobgoblins here, we're playing Red Hand of Doom after Lost Mine of Phandelver, so encountering SOME hobgoblins outdoor IS a typical encounter), killing the mounts will cost the PCs, but it won't WIN THEM THE FIGHT. It makes sense if the fight is one sided : to prevent the PCs fleeing or pursuing. But in a tight encounter, sacrificing 2 rounds of actions so the Dragonborn Paladin is less mobile is a risk. My hobgoblin, knowing he's one hit from death, might rather use a Hail Mary and attack the Paladin itself, hoping for a critical Hit and my PCs to retreat.

From the player point of view, the occasional cost of replacing a Riding Draft Horse is the same as a Healing Potion, and if the enemy spent two attacks on the horse, He probably saved you as much HP that the potion would have healed (you have to adjust the HP to take into account the horse lower AC, although if your Horse Dodges it's less important). And he helped you in action economy, because you need an action to drink that potion, not to get up when your mount die. And he gave you all that extra mobility on round 1.

If players can afford Healing potions, they can afford mounts.

(And, (because I'm generous, and because the players LIKE their mounts) I allow death saves on horses. )

Mounts dying does happen, of course, and yeah, Area of Effect are a hard counter to horses, but not many foes have AoE in tier 1 and 2, IME. My players remember painfully the ones who did.

EDIT : I got Draf Horse and Riding Horse confused. A Draft Horse is 50gp, a Riding Horse is 75. I think my point still stands, but I'll dmit it is weakened.

[diplomancer]

My Dwarf cavalier took the Mounted Combattant feat at level 4, which he often used whilst riding the Bear-shaped Druid before he bought a horse.
My Gnome Beastmaster just bought Mithral Armor Splint for her Giant Badger.
My Wizard just picked up Phantom Steed after the death of her horse, and she's roleplaying her guilt.

The other are contemplating buying Barding armor for their mounts, although I'd expect the Paladin will probably learn Find Steed soon.

However, I DON'T believe attacking the Mounts is always more logical for the monsters. At their level (5) killing their Riding Horses often require an average of, what, 2.3 actions for the monsters ? If it's not killed round 1, having the mount Disengage pushes that closer to 3 actions.

From the monsters point of view (I'm assuming tactical hobgoblins here, we're playing Red Hand of Doom after Lost Mine of Phandelver, so encountering SOME hobgoblins outdoor IS a typical encounter), killing the mounts will cost the PCs, but it won't WIN THEM THE FIGHT. It makes sense if the fight is one sided : to prevent the PCs fleeing or pursuing. But in a tight encounter, sacrificing 2 rounds of actions so the Dragonborn Paladin is less mobile is a risk. My hobgoblin, knowing he's one hit from death, might rather use a Hail Mary and attack the Paladin itself, hoping for a critical Hit.

From the player point of view, the occasional cost of replacing the mount is the same as a Health Potion, and if the enemy spent two attacks on the horse, He probably saved you as much HP that the potion would have healed (you have to adjust the HP to take into account the horse lower AC).

(And, (because I'm generous, and because the players LIKE their mounts) I allow death saves on horses. )

It does happen, of course, and yeah, Area of Effect are a hard counter to horses, but not many foes have AoE in tier 1 and 2, IME. My players remember painfully the ones who did.

Well, in regular 5e, from the Monster's point of view, running away and trying to bring more allies into the fight is almost always the best tactic. But you can't run away on foot from mounted enemies, so you have to try and kill the horses to be even able to do so.

It also looks like that you don't require Animal Handling checks to bring untrained Riding Horses into battle. That is a big enough boost to cheap mounted combat that ruling separate turns might be necessary for balance. If you are talking Warhorse AND Barding, that's a BIG cost; might be worth it, even with separate turns, in a campaign where buying magic items is not an option once money stops being an issue... but then that's connected with a separate problem of 5e...

[Osuniev]

Well, in regular 5e, from the Monster's point of view, running away and trying to bring more allies into the fight is almost always the best tactic. But you can't run away on foot from mounted enemies, so you have to try and kill the horses to be even able to do so.

Yeah, and I'll expect that to become more common in a few encounters. :)

note that this supposes the monsters realize HOW outmatched they are. :)

[Osuniev]

It also looks like that you don't require Animal Handling checks to bring untrained Riding Horses into battle. That is a big enough boost to cheap mounted combat that ruling separate turns might be necessary for balance.

RAW is unclear on that. I did require an Animal Handling check for the time the party was attacked by a Troll, ruling the big predator was very scary for the horses, and I'm planning to have another one tonight when they face a Manticore (for everyone, but with advantage for the Warhorse).

Rest of the time, no, I'll admit i didn't. Would you require one every fight ? that seems flavourful but harsher than what (IMO) the rule entails.

[diplomancer]

Yeah, and I'll expect that to become more common in a few encounters. :)

note that this supposes the monsters realize HOW outmatched they are. :)

True; one more question: do you let Mounts ready actions to move away, so that melee attackers CAN do full attack routines with increased mobility at the cost of an opportunity attack?

RAW is unclear on that. I did require an Animal Handling check for the time the party was attacked by a Troll, ruling the big predator was very scary for the horses, and I'm planning to have another one tonight when they face a Manticore (for everyone, but with advantage for the Warhorse).

Rest of the time, no, I'll admit i didn't. Would you require one every fight ? that seems flavourful but harsher than what (IMO) the rule entails.

Horses are not predators. Their instinct is to run away, not to chase.Without the specialized training of the Warhorse, I'd require, at least once per fight, but maybe once per attempt to bring them into melee, a DC10 Animal Handling check. DC 15 every time they're wounded.

[Tanarii]

Horses are not predators. Their instinct is to run away, not to chase.Without the specialized training of the Warhorse, I'd require, at least once per fight, but maybe once per attempt to bring them into melee, a DC10 Animal Handling check. DC 15 every time they're wounded.

Thats a far harsher and less mount friendly ruling than reading the Mounted Combat rules as "act on your own turns".

I fully agree that it should have been baked into the rules in terms of real world realism, but as it stands it's a very "guy at the gym" interpretation for riding horses.