How do you run Controlled Mounts?

[Valmark]

Personally I always red it as mount and rider sharing the turn and I've never been able to read it differently- it just doesn't make sense otherwise. When you consider that the devs (or at least JC) are wrong often enough that even the SAC has mistake and that there are already other creatures that act on the same turn, it seems fairly obvious.

That said, at my table I never care about the RAW and always go with the funnier and more tactical one- which is rider and mount sharing the turn, so it all goes fine.

[Falrexion]

Mostly agreeing with the posts here but I also allow it for PCs if they happen to get the same initiative, they both have an action, bonus action, and movement but can be used as part of one turn similar to enemy NPCs.

If I have a bunch of goblins, some might rush into melee and attack and some might stay back and used ranged attacks. Then those in melee might disengage and move again where as those at range could instead try to hide. All this happens on the same turn but with a bunch of actions, bonus actions and moves.

For a mount it can move up, the player can attack, then it can use any left over movement or the dash action to move away. However, I think the big issues come from positioning on the mount. A large creature takes up four squares (if you're using a 5ft grid) and being in the middle doesn't make a huge amount of sense. So a player can use their movement to adjust their position on the mount whilst the mount only use movement to move around the map. If you have mounted combatant and you're not in range to take an opportunity attack then your mount will either have to take a hit or take the disengage action. This is where I'm afraid I've made it messy as if you want to hit a lance you have to be on the far side of the mount from the enemy you want to hit to avoid disadvantage, but then your mount is vulnerable if it doesn't disengage. This makes the second point of mounted combatant slightly less useful for lance users but great for anyone that wants a longsword or other one handed weapon that doesn't have reach and needs to be in the same side as a target. Also I don't really allow two handed weapons to be used on mounts unless they're independent so you have less coordination and more cooperation.

I assume that most turns unless you say they're dashing, a mount will take the disengage action to prevent opportunity attacks or dodge if they're not moving out of reach, but it is up to the player. Also I don't like the idea of a mount using its full movement to get to a player and then magically getting it back because the paladin has dumped dex and regularly goes last. Their turn moves to a different initiative but they don't regain any expended movement or actions until the next round.

[Segev]

I think the big issues come from positioning on the mount. A large creature takes up four squares (if you're using a 5ft grid) and being in the middle doesn't make a huge amount of sense. So a player can use their movement to adjust their position on the mount whilst the mount only use movement to move around the map. If you have mounted combatant and you're not in range to take an opportunity attack then your mount will either have to take a hit or take the disengage action. This is where I'm afraid I've made it messy as if you want to hit a lance you have to be on the far side of the mount from the enemy you want to hit to avoid disadvantage, but then your mount is vulnerable if it doesn't disengage.

I think it's easiest just to treat the mounted rider as occupying all of the mount's space. I know this gives one more minor buff to the rider's reach, but I think the simplicity of it is worth the trade-off, and it definitely goes both ways: there's no hiding on the far side of the mount from melee attackers, either.

[Valmark]

For a mount it can move up, the player can attack, then it can use any left over movement or the dash action to move away. However, I think the big issues come from positioning on the mount. A large creature takes up four squares (if you're using a 5ft grid) and being in the middle doesn't make a huge amount of sense. So a player can use their movement to adjust their position on the mount whilst the mount only use movement to move around the map. If you have mounted combatant and you're not in range to take an opportunity attack then your mount will either have to take a hit or take the disengage action. This is where I'm afraid I've made it messy as if you want to hit a lance you have to be on the far side of the mount from the enemy you want to hit to avoid disadvantage, but then your mount is vulnerable if it doesn't disengage. This makes the second point of mounted combatant slightly less useful for lance users but great for anyone that wants a longsword or other one handed weapon that doesn't have reach and needs to be in the same side as a target. Also I don't really allow two handed weapons to be used on mounts unless they're independent so you have less coordination and more cooperation.

I don't think the AoO is really a problem. "You can force an attack targeted at your mount to target you instead" has no mention of reach.

That said I treat it like Segev, where the rider occupies the mount's space. Not really an issue if you can move freely around the spaces anyway.

[Sception]

Goblins disengaging while still having their normal attack actions available on their turn is a special property of goblins. It's also a special ability of rogues and monks. I'm not comfortable with just giving that away for free to any mounted character.

Same with dashing. Rogues and Monks get special class features to dash as a bonus action. IMO it diminishes those classes of mounted characters get to dash for no action cost at all, in addition to having the higher movement speed baked into being mounted. For small sized npcs - which doesn't really hamper most casters & dex builds - this doesn't even come with the awkwardness of a larger space or difficulty navigating stairs.

I don't mind the dodge, since that doesn't get transferred to the rider for free and helps answer the fragility issues of mounts, but yeah. while shared turn is necessary for mounted combat to not be hopelessly awkward, I really don't feel comfortable with the way that interpretation of the written rules lets riders dash or disengage for free.

[Gtdead]

Goblins disengaging while still having their normal attack actions available on their turn is a special property of goblins. It's also a special ability of rogues and monks. I'm not comfortable with just giving that away for free to any mounted character.

Same with dashing. Rogues and Monks get special class features to dash as a bonus action. IMO it diminishes those classes of mounted characters get to dash for no action cost at all, in addition to having the higher movement speed baked into being mounted. For small sized npcs - which doesn't really hamper most casters & dex builds - this doesn't even come with the awkwardness of a larger space or difficulty navigating stairs.

I don't mind the dodge, since that doesn't get transferred to the rider for free and helps answer the fragility issues of mounts, but yeah. while shared turn is necessary for mounted combat to not be hopelessly awkward, I really don't feel comfortable with the way that interpretation of the written rules lets riders dash or disengage for free.

Interesting. Would you apply the same line of reasoning to feats like mobile, or items that allow for weird interactions that overlap with key class abilities? Keep in mind that to actually take advantage of a mount in melee, you need mounted combatant or you will spend more time with your face in the mud and with less money than what you should have. For ranged characters all these considerations do not apply because they don't care if they act in the same turn or not, the outcome will be mostly the same.

[Tanarii]

Mostly agreeing with the posts here but I also allow it for PCs if they happen to get the same initiative, they both have an action, bonus action, and movement but can be used as part of one turn similar to enemy NPCs.

If I have a bunch of goblins, some might rush into melee and attack and some might stay back and used ranged attacks. Then those in melee might disengage and move again where as those at range could instead try to hide. All this happens on the same turn but with a bunch of actions, bonus actions and moves.

That is not correct. It happens on the same initiative account, but each goblin takes their turn one after the other.

Just like a PC and their mount.

[Valmark]

Goblins disengaging while still having their normal attack actions available on their turn is a special property of goblins. It's also a special ability of rogues and monks. I'm not comfortable with just giving that away for free to any mounted character.

Same with dashing. Rogues and Monks get special class features to dash as a bonus action. IMO it diminishes those classes of mounted characters get to dash for no action cost at all, in addition to having the higher movement speed baked into being mounted. For small sized npcs - which doesn't really hamper most casters & dex builds - this doesn't even come with the awkwardness of a larger space or difficulty navigating stairs.

I don't mind the dodge, since that doesn't get transferred to the rider for free and helps answer the fragility issues of mounts, but yeah. while shared turn is necessary for mounted combat to not be hopelessly awkward, I really don't feel comfortable with the way that interpretation of the written rules lets riders dash or disengage for free.

Eh... It's not free. You first need to have a mount, and then need to keep it alive, and then it only works where you can actually take said mount.

That is not correct. It happens on the same initiative account, but each goblin takes their turn one after the other.

Just like a PC and their mount.

Except that nothing says this is true and everything says the opposite in the books.

[Sception]

Except that nothing says this is true and everything says the opposite in the books.

The PHB has very explicit rules for what happens when two creatures have the same initiative score:

"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."

So yeah, the PHB does in fact very clearly say that same initiative does not result in same turn. Each creature still has a completely distinct turn which must be fully resolved before the next turn in the initiative order begins. The only thing that even vaguely implies the opposite is a single line from the mounted combat rules:

"A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it."

That is the only mention in the entirety of the published 5e rules that even implies the mount and rider share turns, and nowhere else in the entire game to individual creature turns overlap at all. Official clarifications from rules writers as to the intent have conflicted, but the most recent comes down in favor of 'turns are always separate, never overlaping', with controlled mounts' turns coming either entirely before or entirely after the rider.

So RAW is nebulous and conflicting, while RAI favors separate turns. Really the only strong case for shared turns between mount and rider comes from the fact that separate turns is just awkward and bad, but it wouldn't be the only awkward and bad bit of rules in the system.

[Segev]

The PHB has very explicit rules for what happens when two creatures have the same initiative score:

"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."

So yeah, the PHB does in fact very clearly say that same initiative does not result in same turn. Each creature still has a completely distinct turn which must be fully resolved before the next turn in the initiative order begins. The only thing that even vaguely implies the opposite is a single line from the mounted combat rules:

"A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it."

That is the only mention in the entirety of the published 5e rules that even implies the mount and rider share turns, and nowhere else in the entire game to individual creature turns overlap at all. Official clarifications from rules writers as to the intent have conflicted, but the most recent comes down in favor of 'turns are always separate, never overlaping', with controlled mounts' turns coming either entirely before or entirely after the rider.

So RAW is nebulous and conflicting, while RAI favors separate turns. Really the only strong case for shared turns between mount and rider comes from the fact that separate turns is just awkward and bad, but it wouldn't be the only awkward and bad bit of rules in the system.

"Tied initiative" is resolved to put them on different initiatives. Monsters that explicitly roll only once for a group initiative - as is the case for all of the same type of monster, e.g. all goblins in a fight - act on the same initiative. The rules regarding it say so in that language. So no, the quote for the mount is not the only time it comes up; it comes up in a rule governing an occurrence that will happen in the vast majority of combats in any game, unless that game for some reason rarely has more than one monster of the same type in a combat.

[Valmark]

"Tied initiative" is resolved to put them on different initiatives. Monsters that explicitly roll only once for a group initiative - as is the case for all of the same type of monster, e.g. all goblins in a fight - act on the same initiative. The rules regarding it say so in that language. So no, the quote for the mount is not the only time it comes up; it comes up in a rule governing an occurrence that will happen in the vast majority of combats in any game, unless that game for some reason rarely has more than one monster of the same type in a combat.

Exactly this. And it's not even the only istance- already in the PHB you see Simulacrums acting on the caster's turn. Creatures acting together has always been a thing ever since the start of 5e (disclaimer: I haven't played the basic rules before the PHB came out, could be wrong) wether explicitely or not.

[BigRedJedi]

Mounted Combat Rules (at my tables):

- Mounting requires half your total movement speed, cannot mount if speed = 0

- An independent mount moves and acts on its own initiative and has no restrictions on its movement or actions unless otherwise specified in the stat block

- A controlled mount acts and moves on your initiative, intermingling with your actions at will, but can only take the Dash, Disengage, or Dodge actions

- A controlled mount can act or move on the round it was mounted if its previous initiative has not been reached in the current round

- A rider is treated as occupying all spaces of a mount, if that mount is only one size category larger than the rider. If the mount is more than one size larger, the rider is treated as occupying the center square/s of the mount (DM adjudicates if there are questions... Yes, this means that Medium or smaller riders on a Large-size mount are treated as occupying all 4 squares of the Large mount, it works in play)

- Opportunity Attacks: Both the mount and rider must use the Disengage action to avoid opportunity attacks for moving out of the reach of an enemy combatant. (I actually think too many DMs don't like mounts getting "free" Disengage because they are treating the mounts like a pair of shoes, instead of as a separate creature that just happens to be acting at the same time as a player. Nothing in the rules indicates that just because a mount takes the Disengage action that it somehow prevents the rider from taking an OA for moving out of an enemy's reach. The relevant PHB quote regarding this would seem to be: "In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount." This indicates that enemies check both the rider and mount to determine if opportunity attacks are provoked by movement... e.g. to avoid an opportunity attack completely, both rider and mount must Disengage.

- The Mounted Combatant Feat functions as written and adds the ability to use any Attack action in a controlled mount's stat block as a bonus action

- All other mounted combat and the Mounted Combatant feat function as written


For outdoor scenarios, this allows my players to have some added mobility (less than you might think, however, not much more than a Monk or Barbarian, if riding tier-appropriate mounts) and, in rare cases, more flexible reach for attacks. It is rare that most dungeons or caverns, however, allow for optimal use of a mount and I have yet to run any size party that had more than one player heavily invest into mounted combat. Pretty much all of these rulings make the combat flow smoothly and without weird corner cases, we have found them effective and enjoyable.

[Tanarii]

- Opportunity Attacks: Both the mount and rider must use the Disengage action to avoid opportunity attacks for moving out of the reach of an enemy combatant. (I actually think too many DMs don't like mounts getting "free" Disengage because they are treating the mounts like a pair of shoes, instead of as a separate creature that just happens to be acting at the same time as a player. Nothing in the rules indicates that just because a mount takes the Disengage action that it somehow prevents the rider from taking an OA for moving out of an enemy's reach. The relevant PHB quote regarding this would seem to be: "In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount." This indicates that enemies check both the rider and mount to determine if opportunity attacks are provoked by movement... e.g. to avoid an opportunity attack completely, both rider and mount must Disengage.

Mounted characters don't provoke OAs because they're being moved, they aren't moving.

You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
PHB 195

Except that nothing says this is true and everything says the opposite in the books.

The PHB says that different creatures have separate turns.
During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn.
PHB 189

It also tells you how to resolve ties between creatures with the same initiative count on the same page. And note that the count still applies after the beginning of a battle, it's not one and done. Various things use it on a round by round basis, legendary actions, conjured animals, summons, new creatures entering a battle.

All of which was previously established

The only potentially debatable point is if the wording of the mounted combat rule makes an exception to the standard.

[BigRedJedi]

Mounted characters don't provoke OAs because they're being moved, they aren't moving.

You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
PHB 195

For an independent mount, I would agree, but it is a much less certain call with a controlled mount, as it explicitly states the controlled mount "moves as you direct it," for which a plain reading would put you squarely in the willing (implied) kind of movement that provokes an OA, if both mount and rider don't take the Disengage action. The mount's movement is effectively being substituted for the rider as it cannot move without direction from the rider.

(Not saying that there isn't a reading that agrees with you, Tanarii, more explaining why I've made the above ruling at my tables. As always, appreciate your input.)

[diplomancer]

Mounted characters don't provoke OAs because they're being moved, they aren't moving.

You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
PHB 195


The PHB says that different creatures have separate turns.
During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn.
PHB 189

It also tells you how to resolve ties between creatures with the same initiative count on the same page. And note that the count still applies after the beginning of a battle, it's not one and done. Various things use it on a round by round basis, legendary actions, conjured animals, summons, new creatures entering a battle.

All of which was previously established

The only potentially debatable point is if the wording of the mounted combat rule makes an exception to the standard.

And the same page also makes another exception; groups of similar creatures, who only have one roll for initiative, all act together. Simulacra are another exception. But, as you've said, this has already been debated before.

[Valmark]

The PHB says that different creatures have separate turns.
During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn.
PHB 189

It also tells you how to resolve ties between creatures with the same initiative count on the same page. And note that the count still applies after the beginning of a battle, it's not one and done. Various things use it on a round by round basis, legendary actions, conjured animals, summons, new creatures entering a battle.

All of which was previously established

The only potentially debatable point is if the wording of the mounted combat rule makes an exception to the standard.

'Each partecipant takes a turn' doesn't mean a different turn- that's adding to the text. Like diplomancer pointed out plenty of creatures act together, PC and NPC wise. Some of those using the same initiative, which means it's not even true that each creature has its own initiative (though rider and mount do have their own).

For an independent mount, I would agree, but it is a much less certain call with a controlled mount, as it explicitly states the controlled mount "moves as you direct it," for which a plain reading would put you squarely in the willing (implied) kind of movement that provokes an OA, if both mount and rider don't take the Disengage action. The mount's movement is effectively being substituted for the rider as it cannot move without direction from the rider.

(Not saying that there isn't a reading that agrees with you, Tanarii, more explaining why I've made the above ruling at my tables. As always, appreciate your input.)

Eh, willing movement has nothing to do with movement that requires your action, reaction or movement. It could be made a case for Booming Blade triggering as it only requires willing movement- at the same time, Dissonant Whispers makes you trigger AoOs despite that being unwilling movement.

[LtPowers]

"In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount." This indicates that enemies check both the rider and mount to determine if opportunity attacks are provoked by movement... e.g. to avoid an opportunity attack completely, both rider and mount must Disengage.[/i]

I'm not seeing the connection here. In fact, I'd argue that the quotation implies that the rider does not need to take the Disengage action. The whole point of allowing the attacker to target the rider on an opportunity attack provoked by the mount is because the rider would otherwise be immune to opportunity attacks, which means the rider would get no benefit from Disengage.


Powers &8^]

[BigRedJedi]

I'm not seeing the connection here. In fact, I'd argue that the quotation implies that the rider does not need to take the Disengage action. The whole point of allowing the attacker to target the rider on an opportunity attack provoked by the mount is because the rider would otherwise be immune to opportunity attacks, which means the rider would get no benefit from Disengage.


Powers &8^]

Perfectly fair reading, illustrating differences in interpretation (and not arguing that my reading is right or that yours is wrong). At my tables, to avoid the silliness of hopping on a horse and getting either:

- A better version of two-thirds of the Rogue's Cunning Action (Dash or Disengage that applies to the rider for free, with no action required by the rider... acknowledging that by my rules, Dash is still 'free' but opens greater likelihood of mount or rider taking OAs)

OR

- A worse, overall, form of mobility than being un-mounted, as you lose the ability to move between attacks, you occupy a larger area of the battlefield (tactical risks and potential spacing liabilities, except on flat, featureless plains), in exchange for a slight increase in speed or a non-magical means of alternate movement types (climb, swim, or fly)

Riding a controlled mount should give a player slightly increased mobility (and, possibly, flexibility on mounts with different movement types), amplified to give an advantage worthy of a feat in cases where the rider has Mounted Combatant. These rules have made mounted combat usable and fun for my players, without needless complication or worrying about edge cases.

Ultimately, as ever, it comes down to what works at your table and being consistent with your players.



Going to add a new bullet point to my mounted combat rules also:

- Any movement performed by a controlled mount is subtracted from the rider's movement, relevant if the rider becomes dismounted during their turn (by choice or otherwise), e.g. if the mount moves more than half of the rider's move speed on a given turn, they cannot dismount (although I would likely allow them to fall off the mount and land prone for no additional movement cost)

Considering explicitly making the mount's movement replace the the rider's movement if it would help with clarity, but none of my players have had any granularity issues so far...

[Witty Username]

I think the most reasonable reading of RAW is two simultaneous turns on the same initiative. Essentially The mounts turn can start when you mount it and before your turn ends. Any when your turn comes you have the rules on moving on the same initiative. It has some interactions to it to take into account.

For example, in same turn concept. Mount and You start in an effect like say moonbeam.
Turn starts both take damage.
In simultaneous turns on the same initiative. Mounts starts turn, takes damage, carries You out of effect and into melee range-You turn starts make an attack action-You turn ends-Mount takes the disengage action-you do not provoke due to it being forced movement- mount does not provoke due to disengage.

[Kenny_Snoggins]

You're correct about the RAW. It sucks.

I run it as:
Any creature can submit to being a controlled mount. Controlled mounts move and act on your own turn, and you can intermingle your actions as you see fit. You don't need to use any sort of action to tell your mount to Dodge, but anything else requires your bonus action. Unintelligent mounts can only Dodge, Dash, or Disengage unless trained to be able to do something else; intelligent mounts can be told to do any valid actions/bonus actions. Mounts can use their reactions at will.

I don't hate that approach-- seems reasonable. I think a good modification to it would be to allow more and more actions to be done by the mount without using your BA as a function of your animal handling skill proficiency. Like, make a 'passive' animal handling score, and at certain benchmarks, the rider can make the mount do things with no action required, and below that it takes either a bonus action or whole action. Would incentivize a rarely taken skill.