This has recently come up in a couple of games where different players have questions about mounted combat. Generally speaking these players' parties have been terrible at abandoning their mounts.

Reading the RAW seems pretty much like an afterthought especially when one considers the price difference between a Riding Horse, Draft Horse, and Warhorse. Like...is there a good reason a Warhorse is so much more expensive beyond the writers behind 5e just having ported it from a previous system and forgetting to address it? A search of the forums here and elsewhere does seem to reveal that a lot of other GMs and DMs have introduced elements of Homebrew into mounted combat...so I thought I'd ask how others handle mounted combat.

In the real world police and military often have to train their horses to not panic in riot or crowd situations. So, while I can recognise that yes it is possible to fire a bow and arrow without controlling a horse with your hand I'm seriously considering implementing a rule that says unless the mount has been trained for combat you must use a hand to control your mount (unless it is intelligent in it's own right with an INT of 8+). Of course if I implement that I'd allow for combat training of a person's mount...it'd just take time, maybe a tenday to allow both mount and rider to train for the intensity of combat?

Likewise, reach weapons often don't get the love they might do in this system. A Lance for example is one handed when mounted...again beyond just having been ported over from a previous system with no thought from the writers they don't see much use by and large. It seems then that if they served a particular purpose that might be nice. So I've been thinking of saying that without a reach weapon a rider of a large mount won't be able to hit a small or tiny creature with only a 5ft melee range weapon. 

I've also been asked by players about mixing and matching movements and actions. So for example:

Mount - Moves 15ft
Rider - Takes action
Mount - Disengages
Mount - Moves 15ft
Rider - Dismounts
Rider - Moves 15ft

Now, this sequence of events isn't rules as written obviously, but given that both rider and mount have the same initative number (when the rider mounts up) are there any issues with allowing this to happen. It would certainly allow for some interesting tactical options. Of course, if not every PC has a mount it might seem unfair?


Like much of 5e it just feels like little if any thought went into the rules for mounted combat and DMs are left with making the best of it. So...how do you all run mounted combat? I'm interested to hear your house rules, interpretations and thoughts on mounted combat.

This is how I do it:

Mounted Combat

A Mount is anything that can be ridden by a PC. An Imperial can be a mount for a Faery, for example. However, in this case, we are talking about beastly mounts, from the common (Horses, Hyborian WarLynx) to the uncommon (Aztani Giant Cassowary, Bears), these are animals trained to be ridden and to respond to direction.

Wild animals must be trained to be ridden, a process taking six weeks. A beast is eligible to be a mount provided:

• It can be domesticated.
• It is capable of learning.
• It is at least one size larger than the being who will be riding it.

When you are mounted, you can choose to have the beast act Independently or Directed.

If Independent, the beast will do what it would do in a given situation, determined by your DM. They will have their own initiative roll and order.

If Directed, they will respond to your commands, use your initiative order, and your saving throws.

Mounting and Dismounting

Once during your move, you can mount or dismount a creature that is within 5 feet of you. Doing so without proficiency in Riding costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed. For example, if your speed is 30 feet, you must spend 15 feet of movement to mount a horse. Therefore, you can’t mount it if you don’t have 15 feet of movement left or if your speed is 0.

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

If an effect moves your mount against its will while you’re on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or fall off the mount, landing prone in a space within 5 feet of it. If you’re knocked prone while mounted, you must make the same saving throw.

If your mount is knocked prone, you can use your reaction to dismount it as it falls and land on your feet. Otherwise, you are dismounted and fall prone in a space within 5 feet it. If your saving throw is a Fumble, you are pinned under the mount.

Action Types

Attacking is the most common form of Action when in combat, but there are many other kinds of actions on can take, and they do not need to only be taken during combat.

Combat of this sort applies a penalty of Disadvantage if the attacker is not proficient in this form of movement. It is otherwise the same as regular combat, with the following additional actions.

Riders can make melee, ranged, and spell attacks from mounts, and a Mount can make an additional attack on that same turn.

In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.

Close Attack

This is an attack that happen after closing with another being.

Lance

This is a Lance attack.

Ranged

This is making a Ranged Attack. Ranged attacks while mounted are at disadvantage.

Maneuver

A Maneuver is a Move action and requires a roll using the Riding proficiency. The DC is 10 plus the modifier of the maneuver being done. If the PC lacks proficiency in riding, they use Dexterity with a DC of 15 plus the modifier for the maneuver.

When Maneuvering, a Rider can choose to switch their Open Action and choose to take a second Maneuver in the same turn – they are focusing on the task of piloting.

Some maneuvers apply penalties to other types of actions being taken; some provide additional types of actions.

Maneuver Mods

Each kind of Maneuver has a modifier, as shown below.

Speed Mods

Speed impacts handling of a vehicle as well. The following table lists the handling modifier for speeds equal to or between the lower number.

Speeds over 125 miles an hour for people unused to traveling faster than 60 miles a day are unlikely to happen, but you can adapt from here.

Back

This moves the mount backwards if it is a land mount. Back can only be moved at one quarter Speed.

Canter

This is full speed. Mounts which engage in combat at a Canter begin to suffer 1 point of Fatigue  after 10 rounds, and then 1 point of fatigue for every 10 rounds after that, unless they are rested.

Close

This is getting close enough for a melee attack.

Collide

This is colliding with an object or creature. This causes the speed of the mount at that turn to be applied as crushing damage to the target on a successful maneuver roll. Failure means the target sustains no damage. Success means that both creatures take damage, with the mount taking half.

Down

This is directing the mount to lie down.

Gallop

This is double full speed, a Dash or Sprint. Galloping applies a fatigue point every five rounds.

Jump

This is jumping an obstacle.

Shift

This is change from one speed to another, in either direction.

Spin

This is spinning the mount around.

Stop

This is stipping the mount. Mounts require at least five feet to stop within.

Trot

This is one half of full speed.

Turn

This is a turn

Trample:

Some creatures have Trampling attacks that target creatures in their path when moving. Riders should make an attack roll for the trampling attack.

Walk

This is the walk speed, one quarter of full speed.

There's lots to love about the way you handle it, and your comments were much of what I read on the forums. 

If I were to steal from your description I'd pick Riding Proficiency and the Reaction Dismount elements, that's really cool. I feel like for players used to 5e though they might find the Maneuvers a bit crunchy and slow down the pace of combat...though I love the tactical elements that they offer. Do you find that they slow combat at all?

For me, the big thing is figuring out what an uncontrolled mount means, if you’re sticking with RAW. It’s a game, someone has to decide what it does. Is it the player, which then defeats the purpose of it being uncontrolled? Or is it the DM, who already has enough to do, and would have a hard time making choices for the mount without either being too easy or too hard on where the character ends up going.

Then, the other problem is how fragile they are. Unless someone has the mounted combatant feat, they die the first time they meet an AoE spell. And even then, they die so quickly. At one point, I realized it’s more economical to just buy 10 horses than it is to buy barding for one horse. You almost need to make them sidekicks if you expect them to survive. 

Quote from martintheactor >>

There's lots to love about the way you handle it, and your comments were much of what I read on the forums. 

If I were to steal from your description I'd pick Riding Proficiency and the Reaction Dismount elements, that's really cool. I feel like for players used to 5e though they might find the Maneuvers a bit crunchy and slow down the pace of combat...though I love the tactical elements that they offer. Do you find that they slow combat at all?

 
it is absolutely fair to call it crunchy -- one of the design goals was a bit more crunch at the request of my player group. I had originally avoided any kind of turning stuff, for example, but then actual playtesting called it out as a need.

In terms of combat exchanges, it does slow things down a bit if one isn't looking at the table as the player describes their actions -- but that's strictly for the DM. FOr the most part, in actual play, we just let the players say what they are going to do and then determine the DC from there, so in actual stuff, it's just a roll. So, no, not really -- it takes a tad bit longer than saying "i hit the orc" because you are now saying "I spin my horse to the left and hit the orc". If the mount has attacks (and most do if they are trained for war) then that's feeds into it, but that was already a problem in the sense of expanding the combat duration because you are till dealing with an extra being having atur in that round.

Because it is built into the action economy structure, it doesn't actually change anything else -- which was a major design goal as well. So in terms of play, the slowest part is on the DM's side totalling up modifiers and that's mostly due to not knowing the table.

As I can tell by my lack of proofing, lol, some of these elements were drawn from the Vehicle combat stuff I just updated slightly, as well, since I put that into place and then drew out from that. 

With minor changes to meet the needs of the assorted DMs in our group, everyone's used this for six months or longer, but because I work on this stuff all the time, lol, the key parts had to be developed out first.

Those parts were:

• Uses the Action Economy. There's no additional actions, no extra things to do -- everyone still has the same number of actions, they just have to choose what they are going to do.
• Is slightly more crunchy because they wanted a touch more realism and what we term "dram" -- a desire for things to possibly go wrong.
• It needs to work for Chases and tie into the overland travel stuff (so that it flows into the wilderness rules and back out seamlessly).
• It needs to allow for facing (this was a DM request, lol).
• It should work in water, air, and land, and match the flying and swimming rules.

That last one was handled by creating variants around swimming and flying, drawn again from vehicle and existing rules regarding them.

Once we knew those things, we were able to just start using the basics -- the different maneuvers all came from actual play situations, instead of trying to think of them all myself. The little bits and pieces of it have been checked off and on, but I also wanted to unify all the "sitting on/in something and fighting" rules, so tweaks have been going on constantly (even as of today, in the case of vehicles).

I will say I got to listen to the rules being used during an encounter in another DMs game where the PCs had to fight a dragon that chased them (being drawn away from the targeted coach of some noble or something) and then had to fight them head on as they turned and went after it *on their mounts*, and the thought of a dragon getting hit by horse kicks still makes me giggle.

I take no issue at all with additional crunch, or the attempts at more realism. I do find 5e to be a bit 'baby's first TTRPG' at times. I personally love more brutal systems like Blades in the Dark. I do have soft spots for prior D&D versions though. There is a touch of Starfinder/Pathfinder vehicle movement in the manuevers you outline which is pretty cool in truth.

Quote from Xalthu >>

For me, the big thing is figuring out what an uncontrolled mount means, if you’re sticking with RAW. It’s a game, someone has to decide what it does. Is it the player, which then defeats the purpose of it being uncontrolled? Or is it the DM, who already has enough to do, and would have a hard time making choices for the mount without either being too easy or too hard on where the character ends up going.

Then, the other problem is how fragile they are. Unless someone has the mounted combatant feat, they die the first time they meet an AoE spell. And even then, they die so quickly. At one point, I realized it’s more economical to just buy 10 horses than it is to buy barding for one horse. You almost need to make them sidekicks if you expect them to survive. 

 
as a DM, I take them over and I am famous for "horse runs the hell away".  Because my basis is "not under control, it runs."

I do agree that sidekick is a big thing (I mean, Artax moments and all). your basic Horse has 13 HP and an AC of 10, so not like they are going to be super durable. Other mounts may be a little more (the Aztani Cassowary has a whopping 20 hp, but it also has an AC of 9), but basically, yeah -- a decent spell fries them fast.

I discovered I roll a d6, with 1 or two having my bad guy target the horse, the rest target the player. So my folks do tend to buy a lot of mounts, lol. 

Quote from Xalthu >>

For me, the big thing is figuring out what an uncontrolled mount means, if you’re sticking with RAW. It’s a game, someone has to decide what it does. Is it the player, which then defeats the purpose of it being uncontrolled? Or is it the DM, who already has enough to do, and would have a hard time making choices for the mount without either being too easy or too hard on where the character ends up going.

Then, the other problem is how fragile they are. Unless someone has the mounted combatant feat, they die the first time they meet an AoE spell. And even then, they die so quickly. At one point, I realized it’s more economical to just buy 10 horses than it is to buy barding for one horse. You almost need to make them sidekicks if you expect them to survive. 

 
Oop, almost missed your comment, yeah mounts - horses particularly - are pretty squishy. To be honest I wouldn't say it's much of a hardship for a DM to simply say 'the horse runs...away' and randomly pick a direction if it's uncontrolled. My interpretation of uncontrolled mount is where my thoughts of 'is the mount combat trained?' If it's not then to be considered controlled it must have an INT of 8+ or have the rider holding the reins.

And thinking about AoE, they're literal death for most 'traditional' mounts. Bar an Owlbear, or Drake or such they're going down even with Mounted Combatant I would say.

It just now occurred to me that I don't really have anything written for "trick riding". Stuff like using hte horse for cover or riding off the saddle and such.

Not that it is a big deal -- athletics or acrobatics are fine, and I would probably just set the DC to the same as any other maneuver.

Also, one thing to keep in mind -- the maneuver tables are to help the DM. That's it. you could still just apply any old DC that makes sense to you in the moment and strip them out.

Players don't need all that crap, lol. They just need to have a list of what they can do -- and the hardest part was picking names for maneuvers that could be put onto a "Combat cheat sheet" and still be distinct from existing actions they can take.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Also, one thing to keep in mind -- the maneuver tables are to help the DM. That's it. you could still just apply any old DC that makes sense to you in the moment and strip them out.

Players don't need all that crap, lol. They just need to have a list of what they can do -- and the hardest part was picking names for maneuvers that could be put onto a "Combat cheat sheet" and still be distinct from existing actions they can take.

 
Thanks, that really helps...the idea of just having some kind of reference list just for DMs that will come in useful.

Quote from martintheactor>>

...is there a good reason a Warhorse is so much more expensive

I'd say, yes, the fact that it can be used in combat. A non-combat trained animal is going to panic and run away from a melee. Even in a ranged battle, the first time the mount gets injured it will panic and flee.

Otherwise, don't overthink it.

If it's a smart creature then it has its own turn on initiative, just like every other participant. It's just that when it moves, the rider goes with it.

Else it operates on the same turn as the rider, efectively just giving the rider another Action (dash, disengage or dodge) and more movement than they normally would.

However, you'll probably find that players never use mounted combat. The idea that one fireball means they are walking means that few playerrs will spend their character's gold on a mount. The only time I've seen 5E players mounted during combat were casters using find greater steed.

Quote from Greenstone_Walker >>

Quote from martintheactor>>

...is there a good reason a Warhorse is so much more expensive

I'd say, yes, the fact that it can be used in combat. A non-combat trained animal is going to panic and run away from a melee. Even in a ranged battle, the first time the mount gets injured it will panic and flee.

Otherwise, don't overthink it.

If it's a smart creature then it has its own turn on initiative, just like every other participant. It's just that when it moves, the rider goes with it.

Else it operates on the same turn as the rider, efectively just giving the rider another Action (dash, disengage or dodge) and more movement than they normally would.

However, you'll probably find that players never use mounted combat. The idea that one fireball means they are walking means that few playerrs will spend their character's gold on a mount. The only time I've seen 5E players mounted during combat were casters using find greater steed.

 
I not only have mounts, I have wagons to deal with!

my players will go through mounts so quick, that ones who survive become protected.

I do have travel as a part of the game, though. Travel that is slow means more encounters. It is quite common for them to graduate to whatever means of safe, speedy travel they can get!

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Quote from Greenstone_Walker >>

Quote from martintheactor>

 
I not only have mounts, I have wagons to deal with!

my players will go through mounts so quick, that ones who survive become protected.

I do have travel as a part of the game, though. Travel that is slow means more encounters. It is quite common for them to graduate to whatever means of safe, speedy travel they can get! 

 
I can understand wagons, though I'll be honest I feel like long distance travel is something I get bored with relatively quick. As a DM it is one of my real weaknesses. That said, yeah giving the party a wagon or a cart and horse does tend to be my go-to when they need to travel. 

As I say out of the three groups I currently run though I had players from each one of those groups ask me about mounted combat, if it's any good, and how it works. Largely, I'm not a fan of extra rolls as I feel they slow down combat, and have tried to keep it all fairly simple.

Martin's Rules for Mounted Combat

1. Unless the mount has been specially trained for combat or has an intelligence over 8, the rider needs to use one hand to control the mount at all times.
2. Player Characters can take downtime to train the mount for combat - this time will be set at an in game month (30 days) of downtime.
3. You cannot mix and match your, and your mount's movements & actions. Even though your mount has the same initiative number when ridden, it has a separate initiative to you.
4. Size matters and where you sit on the mount will matter. If the mount's size is Large, the rider requires a weapon with more than 5ft reach to attack a creature that is small or tiny. (Horse height in the UK at least is measured from ground to the shoulder and averages between 1.4-1.8m or 4.5-5.9ft) In D&D 5e horses are considered to be large creatures with a height between 8ft & 16ft. Reach is measured from the rider/attacker. This is partially why reach weapons exist. If mounted on a Huge Mount, you will be unable to reach a Medium, or Small creature without a reach weapon. (This assumes the rider's size is medium).
5. Feats that refer to your movement do not work when mounted...it has to be your movement, not the movement of your mount (specifically referencing charger feat here).
6. Feats that grant bonuses to creatures definitely grant bonuses to your steed (like grants to temp HP and or AC).
7. You can try to do any kind of movement you like while mounted, however particularly tricky or difficult movements or controls for your mount might require a check (generally animal handling).
8. If your mount is drawing a cart, wagon, sled or other vehicle, it can only move, dodge, or disengage. A mount can be freed from the vehicle in question but it takes 5 minutes.

I think with this ruleset I avoided treading on the toes of the various feats, and even the Cavelier subclass that exists. Hopefully it also doesn't slow combat at all but allows a clear guide as to what isn't allowable - because everything else would be allowable.

The RAW on mounts is pretty bad.

In particular, a controlled mount does NOT go on your turn. It goes on the same initiative but every creature in combat explicitly has its own turn. So, RAW, a character can't ride in, make an attack, and ride away as most players would expect. Most/some DMs probably house rule that to something more reasonable ... but RAW the creatures can't share turns.

Once you move into homebrew territory, you can go with whatever level of complexity works for you and your players.

Finally, a regular riding horse isn't trained for combat so the sounds of combat, the smell of blood, and especially taking any sort of damage, is likely to spook the animal (though I don't think any of that is explicit in the rules). A warhorse is trained to deal with combat which is the explanation for the price differential.