So after some tension at the table today I want some other opinions on how a warhorse from summoned with Find Steed functions in combat.
So from my understanding of mounted combat with a horse from Find Steed goes along the lines of:
It has its own initiative roll
It can be ridden as a controlled or uncontrolled mount(I select how it is ridden at the beginning of each round)
As independent mount:
It can take it own turn where it can(as instructed by me) move, attack(hooves, trampling charge), dash, disengage, and dodge
I can take my own turn with my full actions and 0ft of movement(unless I dismount where it would be halved for this turn)
As controlled mount:
It uses my initiative
It can only move, dash, disengage, and dodge
I can take my own turn with my full actions and 0ft of movement(unless I dismount where it would be halved for this turn)
Jeremy Crawford even suggests that the mount is intelligent enough to be considered independent, but you can choose to treat it as a controlled mount and you can decide whether to treat it as independent or controlled each time you mount it. He suggests earlier in the podcast that DMs should allow players to make this decision each round. - "WotC's Dragon Talk Podcast"
As it stands now my DM has decided that I am always in control of the horse while mounted. This means that it will use my initiative and attack action if I choose to use hooves or trample.
I personly feel cheated by this ruling but nothing I can do now. I am not going to argue it with him further I just wanted to get some opinions.
Why your DM is correct and you are not being "cheated".
An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.
The granted intelligence is there to allow you to communicate with the mount really. More of Trigger in the Lone Ranger, without all the off camera training/tricks.
There is nothing in the rules which suggests you get to "choose" controlled or independent. If it is independent it is always independent. I do find it pretty silly that one cannot CHARGE while mounted gaining both the rider's attacks as well as the trample attack and would allow that as a "combined action", maybe having the trample take up one of the attacks of the rider in the attack action. See if your DM will allow that as a compromise, since it is both realistic and "rule of cool". without being OP.
Actually, the very first paragraph of rules for mounts expressly states that you get to choose controlled or independent.
Controlling a Mount
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. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training. The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.
An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.
In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
Specific overrides general. Your mount from Find Steed specifically states it allows you to fight as a seamless unit, thus cannot act against your wishes. Hence, it is not independent, while mounted it is subservient. However, unlike a normal, unintelligent mount, or a familiar, when not mounted it is another "character" in the party, and should be controlled by the player not the DM per normal independent mount rules.
Regardless, the DM has made a ruling, the OP is asking for opinions. The above reasoning is one of many possibilities of WHY the DM made the ruling.
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.
The mount summoned by Find Steed is an intelligent mount. According to Jeremy Crawford, the lead rules designer for Wizards of the Coast, this makes it acceptable as an independent and intelligent mount.
Nowhere in the spell’s description does it state that “fighting as a seamless unit” precludes the mount from acting independently while mounted.
You summon a spirit that assumes the form of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed, creating a long-lasting bond with it. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the steed takes on a form that you choose: a warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, or a mastiff. (Your GM might allow other animals to be summoned as steeds.) The steed has the statistics of the chosen form, though it is a celestial, fey, or fiend (your choice) instead of its normal type. Additionally, if your steed has an Intelligence of 5 or less, its Intelligence becomes 6, and it gains the ability to understand one language of your choice that you speak.
Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out, and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit. While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed.
When the steed drops to 0 hit points, it disappears, leaving behind no physical form. You can also dismiss your steed at any time as an action, causing it to disappear. In either case, casting this spell again summons the same steed, restored to its hit point maximum.
While your steed is within 1 mile of you, you can communicate with each other telepathically.
You can't have more than one steed bonded by this spell at a time. As an action, you can release the steed from its bond at any time, causing it to disappear.
And nowhere does it say that an independent mount “acts against your wishes” only that it could if it wanted to. Since you are “a seamless unit” all that means is that it wouldn’t want to.
And nowhere does it say that an independent mount “acts against your wishes” only that it could if it wanted to. Since you are “a seamless unit” all that means is that it wouldn’t want to.
Try reading again. I've already bolded the words. If it cannot "act as it wishes" then it is not independent. Not having free will is a pretty classic definition of NOT being independent.
@Masta, unless it is in SAC, nothing JC states means anything to anyone except those who want it to be the way he (often wrongly and contradictory) states. You are also missing the point that if the mount is to be considered independent, due to its intelligence alone, then like a dragon, it is ALWAYS independent (you only get to choose with unintelligent mounts) and is DM controlled. Now I don't know about you, but I know that I would much rather give up a 2d6+4 attack rather than have the remote possibility that my mount spooks and runs away from a fire/combat/etc.
And nowhere does it say that an independent mount “acts against your wishes” only that it could if it wanted to. Since you are “a seamless unit” all that means is that it wouldn’t want to.
Try reading again. I've already bolded the words. If it cannot "act as it wishes" then it is not independent. Not having free will is a pretty classic definition of NOT being independent.
@Masta, unless it is in SAC, nothing JC states means anything to anyone except those who want it to be the way he (often wrongly and contradictory) states. You are also missing the point that if the mount is to be considered independent, due to its intelligence alone, then like a dragon, it is ALWAYS independent (you only get to choose with unintelligent mounts) and is DM controlled. Now I don't know about you, but I know that I would much rather give up a 2d6+4 attack rather than have the remote possibility that my mount spooks and runs away from a fire/combat/etc.
Who says it “cannot ascot as it wishes?!?” You are presuming that it is “subservient” but it never says that anywhere in the spell’s description.
Scanning back and forth on this, it seems like maybe a few things are getting muddled up:
Controlled Vs Independent Mount - An 'intelligent' mount (however your DM sets that threshold) is always independent, which means it always acts on its own initiative under it's own motivation. An unintelligent mount can be either directly controlled (using your initiative) or allowed to act independently.
Independent Mounts & Loyalty - A mount being independent does not intrinsically mean it will not do what you say. That depends entirely on the bond you have with the creature. An independent mount could, theoretically, do exactly what you say. It'll just do it on its own initiative rather than yours. This can be good (more action economy) or bad (not getting to move until later in the turn)
Find Steed, Intelligence and Loyalty - Find Steed specifies it bumps the intelligence to 6. The rules don't specify that this counts as intelligent, so it's ultimately down to the DM to rule of that's the cut off for being a controlled mount or independent only. However, the rules for the spell do state "unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed" so that would imply the following:
The steed is intelligent and thus can only be an independent mount
The steed is very loyal and thus would pretty much do what you say, just on its own initiative (if the above point is true)
Find Steed & 'Seamless Units' - The paragraph about fighting as a seamless unit states:
Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out, and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit. While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed.
The first sentence is flavour, the second sentence is mechanics. Basically, you two fighting as a 'seamless unit' means 'while mounted you can extend spells that would only target you to also target your mount'. It doesn't modify how the mount behaves any other way under the mounted combat rules
Intelligent Mounts & DM Control - A mount being intelligent doesn't automatically place it under the DMs control. The DM can allow the player to control the mount on its own initiative just like a player can control their own familiar or pet. The DM may decide to tell the player "In this situation your mount will actually do this" but they don't have to take full control of the mount
Find (Greater) Steed & Jeremy Crawford - JC actually says that the mount can be controlled or independent, not that it must be independent. He does not specify if this is because it is intelligent, or due to the nature of the spell. Do with this what you will, but it at least gives the intention of the spell.
Ultimately whether or not you have the option to directly control your steed comes down to what the DM considers the cut off for 'intelligent'. Even if the steed is intelligent and must be independent, that doesn't mean the DM has full control and also doesn't mean the steed becomes an unpredictable, uncontrollable hazard in combat.
This is a situation where you should talk to your DM about how they handle this spell and have a discussion about expectations.
I have a bard with Find Greater Steed and I rule that while the steed is intelligent, and thus always independent, it's pretty much exclusively under the bards control due to the bond. This means he gets the upside of a better action economy, but the downside of initiative timing
Since mount and rider each keep their turn, I assume that moving with the mount, performing an action with the rider and then again move with the mount using the remainig movement, is not allowed, right?
Assuming the rider goes first, could he ready an action, e.g. a melee attack when in range, to use on the mount’s turn, when it gets into said melee range? Can the mount, after it moved into range, take the dash (assuming it didn‘t dash before), dodge or disengage action? If the mount takes the disengage action, does this protect the rider from opportunity attacks, too? Generally speaking, opportunity attacks can target the mount or the rider, right?
The topic of mounted combat has become more of a going concern in my campaign of late, due to an extended outdoor adventure we're playing and the presence of multiple paladins. Just to sum up what I understood from the above commentary:
A rider can mount as part of their movement and then decide whether they will control the mount, gaining its movement (if the mount's training allows this) with the mount only being allowed the dash, disengage or dodge actions (no attacks). Or, they can allow the beast to act independently in which case the rider and mount act on their own initiative and both are allowed to attack but, the rider cannot control the mount's movement. They go wherever the mount takes them, essentially having a move of zero unless they choose to hop off the mount. Whether or not the paladin is astride a summoned steed doesn't seem to change anything w.r.t. the RAW even though some seem to want to argue that it should. A warhorse, it would seem, ought to have enough training to act independently in a combat situation if needed and clearly a summoned mount would be so capable.
The odd thing is that a charging mount with rider ought to be able to bring to bear both a lance (or sword) and the mount's trampling charge but this would seem to be prohibited even though it is thematically appropriate. This is somewhat troubling.
What is the meaning of the controlled mount having a dash, dodge or disengage action? If the rider and mount are acting as one, surely these actions represent the characters dash, dodge or disengage actions while the character is mounted. It seems meaningless if not outright confusing for the mount to have a separate dash, dodge or disengage from the rider. Moreover, if an independently acting mount were to take these actions the rider would need to comply else dismount (or be dismounted).
A point that hasn't been raised yet is whether or not the rider can choose to relinquish control (or conversely seize control) on a round to round basis. This would make some sense in a situation where the knight was charging in to one group of enemies (control needed) then basically wading amongst them hewing left and right but not needing to move (relinquish control to the mount in a target rich environment because everyone is within reach of both the rider's sword and horses hooves) and finally regain control in order to target another massed enemy on the battlefield (rinse and repeat).
Looking at the stats for a War Horse in the Monster Manual, the intelligence is listed at a 2. To me this wouldn't imply that its automatically independent because of its intelligence. The description indicates that if it is intelligent such as a dragon it would be independent. I guess I'm stuck on this point.
Separately that intelligence doesn't make sense to me as a Zombie comes up as 3, but that's what it is.
The odd thing is that a charging mount with rider ought to be able to bring to bear both a lance (or sword) and the mount's trampling charge but this would seem to be prohibited even though it is thematically appropriate.
It is not prohibited at all. The Ready action allows you to do this.
Character's turn: Ready an Attack when in range of enemy, Mount's turn: Mount moves near enemy. Character attacks. Mount attacks. Mount perhaps moves away from enemy,
The odd thing is that a charging mount with rider ought to be able to bring to bear both a lance (or sword) and the mount's trampling charge but this would seem to be prohibited even though it is thematically appropriate.
It is not prohibited at all. The Ready action allows you to do this.
Character's turn: Ready an Attack when in range of enemy, Mount's turn: Mount moves near enemy. Character attacks. Mount attacks. Mount perhaps moves away from enemy,
I can see this makes sense mechanically. It also makes sense with a mount that is intelligent enough to want to charge into combat on its own volition (like a dragon). I don't think that a warhorse would charge an enemy position on its own volition, whether it was a summoned horse or not. It would have to be controlled to be spurred into that charge (negating its trample) or at least willed to do so by the paladin if a summoned mount (which might not count as control, preserving the ability to trample). This implies that paladins with summoned mounts would get trample and others not -- which I could live with.
Looking at the stats for a War Horse in the Monster Manual, the intelligence is listed at a 2. To me this wouldn't imply that its automatically independent because of its intelligence. The description indicates that if it is intelligent such as a dragon it would be independent. I guess I'm stuck on this point.
Separately that intelligence doesn't make sense to me as a Zombie comes up as 3, but that's what it is.
Looking at the stats for a War Horse in the Monster Manual, the intelligence is listed at a 2. To me this wouldn't imply that its automatically independent because of its intelligence. The description indicates that if it is intelligent such as a dragon it would be independent. I guess I'm stuck on this point.
Separately that intelligence doesn't make sense to me as a Zombie comes up as 3, but that's what it is.
I agree. I don't think that a war horse or probably any creature with an intelligence under about 6 would "think" independently enough to charge into combat on its own unless (like our zombie friend) that is in its very nature. A hungry predator or in this case, an undead, would attack. But a horse (which is a prey animal) would not. It is the (war) training that allows a horse to act in combat without bolting (which *would be in its nature). I do think it is reasonable, given the flavor text in the Find Steed spell, to assume that a Paladin's summoned steed would be commanded to charge (or willed to charge) as a free action such that it is not technically "controlled" and can trample in addition to the paladin being able to act.
Additionally, if your steed has an Intelligence of 5 or less, its Intelligence becomes 6, and it gains the ability to understand one language of your choice that you speak.
So intelligence is automatically raised to the 6 - making it intelligent enough to act independently especially in the case of a warhorse that would be trained in battle
PHB Chapter 9 provides the baseline rules for a mount :.
The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.
If controlled, its initiative "matches your own," which doesn't specifically say but strongly implies that it acts on your turn, to allow you to ride around during your turn on it; and its menu of actions shrink down to just Dash, Dodge, or Disengage no matter what other actions or attacks it would ordinarily have as a creature. There's no indication that urging your mount to use that Dash, Dodge, or Disengage takes any sort of action of the rider, btw, just kind of part of generally controlling it as a rider... remember that for later.
PHB Chapter 9 provides that the baseline rules for an "independent" mount, it basically just acts like a totally separate creature with its own initiative, normal action menu, and independent decision making process as an NPC (the DM may or may not let you the player control that independent creature, but the PHB doesn't seem to think they should).
An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.
Next look at the Find Steed spell, which Paladins use to summon a magical intelligent mount. It doesn't provide any special rules for how to command it as a mount or when it takes its turn, so presumably it has the same options of being controlled (acting on your turn, limited actions) or independent (acting on its own turn, full actions)... but probably with an implied assurance that the player really will be able to make its decisions for it on its turn due to your "instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit," (not to mention the outright telepathy with it that the spell grants you).
Now look at Conjure Animals, which can easily summon you a horse that will serve as a mount, but will take "no actions" on its own turns if independent unless ordered to do so (other than "defending itself," whatever that means). Probably not that different from a Find Steed horse, other than lacking telepathy: by default takes its own turn, but if ridden, probably works like a normal controlled or independent (but player directed) steed.
Now look at a Beastmater Ranger's Animal Companion.
The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action.
Interestingly, its default state while not being ridden as a controlled mount is to "take its turn on your initiative".... is this the same as a controlled mount's initiative that "matches your own" and lets it act on your turn? Or is this more like the Steel Defender's "shares your initiative count, but it takes its turn immediately after yours"???? Hmmm. You'll also notice that commanding it to Dash or Disengagetakes your action.... just when it's off on its own, or even when you're riding it as a controlled mount (which recall ordinarily lets you do that with no action)??? Troublesome.... and as an independent mount, the Beast Companion really freezes up, with the feature providing that it will choose to do nothing other than take the Dodge action, while other mounts like a Warhorse would have no problem bucking around and making hoof attacks.
They've recently tried to "fix" the Beast Master, providing a new "Primal Companion" optional variant for it in the Tasha's Cauldron of Everything sourcebook. Did it fix Companions as mounts?
In combat, the beast acts during your turn. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action. If you are incapacitated, the beast can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge.
Well now, the Beast by default acts DURING your turn, not just on your initiative count on its own turn. It also isn't locked to a limited menu of actions... There's a weird decision you need to make if riding it: it already acts on your turn like a controlled mount no matter what, but it will be able to take unrestricted actions by giving it a command using your bonus action if you're riding it as an independent mount, or a more limited menu of actions using no action if you're riding it as a controlled mount. Odd.
So now let's turn to the Battlesmith's Steel Defender... surprise surprise, it doesn't work like a Beast Companion, a Primal Companion, or a Find Steed, or a normal horse!
In combat, the defender shares your initiative count, but it takes its turn immediately after yours. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes on its turn is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. If you are incapacitated, the defender can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge.
By default, the defender has its own turn, but as discussed, riding it as a controlled mount would arguably make it act on your turn. Its a little weird that this feature was released around the same time as the Primal Companion feature in Tasha's because the decision tree on riding this Defender is totally different. The Primal Companion was going to be on your turn either way, so riding it controlled vs. independent came down to whether you wanted to be able to order it to Dash/Disengage/Dodge using no action but give up ability to attack (controlled), or the ability to let it attack etc if commanded with bonus actions (independent). For the Defender, the tree instead comes down to whether you want the Defender to move on your turn and have limited actions without taking your action to command (controlled), or act on its own turn and have a fuller menu of actions that you can command with a bonus (independent).
If you're confused as to why there'd be.... four different versions of riding a horse/Companion/Defender? Yeah, you're not alone, it makes no sense that "how do I ride a mount?" should be this complicated or inconsistent. Most DMs probably don't try to play this RAW, I would imagine.
The odd thing is that a charging mount with rider ought to be able to bring to bear both a lance (or sword) and the mount's trampling charge but this would seem to be prohibited even though it is thematically appropriate.
It is not prohibited at all. The Ready action allows you to do this.
Character's turn: Ready an Attack when in range of enemy, Mount's turn: Mount moves near enemy. Character attacks. Mount attacks. Mount perhaps moves away from enemy,
God this is so fundamentally unsatisfying. What needs to happen is that the mounted character needs to be able to move on their turn using the mount's speed. Why the designers didn't add that simple instruction into the rules is beyond me, as it would have fixed everything. The mounted combat rules are so wonky that they never actually grant the rider the ability to share the same space as the mount, even though of course they must. But to elaborate on this, when you have a medium-sized character riding a large-sized mount, which of the four squares would you put them rider on in a gridded battle map?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So after some tension at the table today I want some other opinions on how a warhorse from summoned with Find Steed functions in combat.
So from my understanding of mounted combat with a horse from Find Steed goes along the lines of:
As it stands now my DM has decided that I am always in control of the horse while mounted. This means that it will use my initiative and attack action if I choose to use hooves or trample.
I personly feel cheated by this ruling but nothing I can do now. I am not going to argue it with him further I just wanted to get some opinions.
Why your DM is correct and you are not being "cheated".
The granted intelligence is there to allow you to communicate with the mount really. More of Trigger in the Lone Ranger, without all the off camera training/tricks.
There is nothing in the rules which suggests you get to "choose" controlled or independent. If it is independent it is always independent. I do find it pretty silly that one cannot CHARGE while mounted gaining both the rider's attacks as well as the trample attack and would allow that as a "combined action", maybe having the trample take up one of the attacks of the rider in the attack action. See if your DM will allow that as a compromise, since it is both realistic and "rule of cool". without being OP.
Actually, the very first paragraph of rules for mounts expressly states that you get to choose controlled or independent.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Specific overrides general. Your mount from Find Steed specifically states it allows you to fight as a seamless unit, thus cannot act against your wishes. Hence, it is not independent, while mounted it is subservient. However, unlike a normal, unintelligent mount, or a familiar, when not mounted it is another "character" in the party, and should be controlled by the player not the DM per normal independent mount rules.
Regardless, the DM has made a ruling, the OP is asking for opinions. The above reasoning is one of many possibilities of WHY the DM made the ruling.
The PHB says this:
The mount summoned by Find Steed is an intelligent mount. According to Jeremy Crawford, the lead rules designer for Wizards of the Coast, this makes it acceptable as an independent and intelligent mount.
Nowhere in the spell’s description does it state that “fighting as a seamless unit” precludes the mount from acting independently while mounted.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
And nowhere does it say that an independent mount “acts against your wishes” only that it could if it wanted to. Since you are “a seamless unit” all that means is that it wouldn’t want to.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Try reading again. I've already bolded the words. If it cannot "act as it wishes" then it is not independent. Not having free will is a pretty classic definition of NOT being independent.
@Masta, unless it is in SAC, nothing JC states means anything to anyone except those who want it to be the way he (often wrongly and contradictory) states. You are also missing the point that if the mount is to be considered independent, due to its intelligence alone, then like a dragon, it is ALWAYS independent (you only get to choose with unintelligent mounts) and is DM controlled. Now I don't know about you, but I know that I would much rather give up a 2d6+4 attack rather than have the remote possibility that my mount spooks and runs away from a fire/combat/etc.
Who says it “cannot ascot as it wishes?!?” You are presuming that it is “subservient” but it never says that anywhere in the spell’s description.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Scanning back and forth on this, it seems like maybe a few things are getting muddled up:
The first sentence is flavour, the second sentence is mechanics. Basically, you two fighting as a 'seamless unit' means 'while mounted you can extend spells that would only target you to also target your mount'. It doesn't modify how the mount behaves any other way under the mounted combat rules
Ultimately whether or not you have the option to directly control your steed comes down to what the DM considers the cut off for 'intelligent'. Even if the steed is intelligent and must be independent, that doesn't mean the DM has full control and also doesn't mean the steed becomes an unpredictable, uncontrollable hazard in combat.
This is a situation where you should talk to your DM about how they handle this spell and have a discussion about expectations.
I have a bard with Find Greater Steed and I rule that while the steed is intelligent, and thus always independent, it's pretty much exclusively under the bards control due to the bond. This means he gets the upside of a better action economy, but the downside of initiative timing
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Thank you. 🙏
Le molto gentile.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Since mount and rider each keep their turn, I assume that moving with the mount, performing an action with the rider and then again move with the mount using the remainig movement, is not allowed, right?
Assuming the rider goes first, could he ready an action, e.g. a melee attack when in range, to use on the mount’s turn, when it gets into said melee range? Can the mount, after it moved into range, take the dash (assuming it didn‘t dash before), dodge or disengage action? If the mount takes the disengage action, does this protect the rider from opportunity attacks, too? Generally speaking, opportunity attacks can target the mount or the rider, right?
The topic of mounted combat has become more of a going concern in my campaign of late, due to an extended outdoor adventure we're playing and the presence of multiple paladins. Just to sum up what I understood from the above commentary:
A rider can mount as part of their movement and then decide whether they will control the mount, gaining its movement (if the mount's training allows this) with the mount only being allowed the dash, disengage or dodge actions (no attacks). Or, they can allow the beast to act independently in which case the rider and mount act on their own initiative and both are allowed to attack but, the rider cannot control the mount's movement. They go wherever the mount takes them, essentially having a move of zero unless they choose to hop off the mount. Whether or not the paladin is astride a summoned steed doesn't seem to change anything w.r.t. the RAW even though some seem to want to argue that it should. A warhorse, it would seem, ought to have enough training to act independently in a combat situation if needed and clearly a summoned mount would be so capable.
The odd thing is that a charging mount with rider ought to be able to bring to bear both a lance (or sword) and the mount's trampling charge but this would seem to be prohibited even though it is thematically appropriate. This is somewhat troubling.
What is the meaning of the controlled mount having a dash, dodge or disengage action? If the rider and mount are acting as one, surely these actions represent the characters dash, dodge or disengage actions while the character is mounted. It seems meaningless if not outright confusing for the mount to have a separate dash, dodge or disengage from the rider. Moreover, if an independently acting mount were to take these actions the rider would need to comply else dismount (or be dismounted).
A point that hasn't been raised yet is whether or not the rider can choose to relinquish control (or conversely seize control) on a round to round basis. This would make some sense in a situation where the knight was charging in to one group of enemies (control needed) then basically wading amongst them hewing left and right but not needing to move (relinquish control to the mount in a target rich environment because everyone is within reach of both the rider's sword and horses hooves) and finally regain control in order to target another massed enemy on the battlefield (rinse and repeat).
Have I misunderstood?
Looking at the stats for a War Horse in the Monster Manual, the intelligence is listed at a 2. To me this wouldn't imply that its automatically independent because of its intelligence. The description indicates that if it is intelligent such as a dragon it would be independent. I guess I'm stuck on this point.
Separately that intelligence doesn't make sense to me as a Zombie comes up as 3, but that's what it is.
Looking for a game
It is not prohibited at all. The Ready action allows you to do this.
Character's turn: Ready an Attack when in range of enemy,
Mount's turn: Mount moves near enemy. Character attacks. Mount attacks. Mount perhaps moves away from enemy,
I can see this makes sense mechanically. It also makes sense with a mount that is intelligent enough to want to charge into combat on its own volition (like a dragon). I don't think that a warhorse would charge an enemy position on its own volition, whether it was a summoned horse or not. It would have to be controlled to be spurred into that charge (negating its trample) or at least willed to do so by the paladin if a summoned mount (which might not count as control, preserving the ability to trample). This implies that paladins with summoned mounts would get trample and others not -- which I could live with.
I agree. I don't think that a war horse or probably any creature with an intelligence under about 6 would "think" independently enough to charge into combat on its own unless (like our zombie friend) that is in its very nature. A hungry predator or in this case, an undead, would attack. But a horse (which is a prey animal) would not. It is the (war) training that allows a horse to act in combat without bolting (which *would be in its nature). I do think it is reasonable, given the flavor text in the Find Steed spell, to assume that a Paladin's summoned steed would be commanded to charge (or willed to charge) as a free action such that it is not technically "controlled" and can trample in addition to the paladin being able to act.
So intelligence is automatically raised to the 6 - making it intelligent enough to act independently especially in the case of a warhorse that would be trained in battle
PHB Chapter 9 provides the baseline rules for a mount :.
If controlled, its initiative "matches your own," which doesn't specifically say but strongly implies that it acts on your turn, to allow you to ride around during your turn on it; and its menu of actions shrink down to just Dash, Dodge, or Disengage no matter what other actions or attacks it would ordinarily have as a creature. There's no indication that urging your mount to use that Dash, Dodge, or Disengage takes any sort of action of the rider, btw, just kind of part of generally controlling it as a rider... remember that for later.
PHB Chapter 9 provides that the baseline rules for an "independent" mount, it basically just acts like a totally separate creature with its own initiative, normal action menu, and independent decision making process as an NPC (the DM may or may not let you the player control that independent creature, but the PHB doesn't seem to think they should).
Next look at the Find Steed spell, which Paladins use to summon a magical intelligent mount. It doesn't provide any special rules for how to command it as a mount or when it takes its turn, so presumably it has the same options of being controlled (acting on your turn, limited actions) or independent (acting on its own turn, full actions)... but probably with an implied assurance that the player really will be able to make its decisions for it on its turn due to your "instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit," (not to mention the outright telepathy with it that the spell grants you).
Now look at Conjure Animals, which can easily summon you a horse that will serve as a mount, but will take "no actions" on its own turns if independent unless ordered to do so (other than "defending itself," whatever that means). Probably not that different from a Find Steed horse, other than lacking telepathy: by default takes its own turn, but if ridden, probably works like a normal controlled or independent (but player directed) steed.
Now look at a Beastmater Ranger's Animal Companion.
Interestingly, its default state while not being ridden as a controlled mount is to "take its turn on your initiative".... is this the same as a controlled mount's initiative that "matches your own" and lets it act on your turn? Or is this more like the Steel Defender's "shares your initiative count, but it takes its turn immediately after yours"???? Hmmm. You'll also notice that commanding it to Dash or Disengage takes your action.... just when it's off on its own, or even when you're riding it as a controlled mount (which recall ordinarily lets you do that with no action)??? Troublesome.... and as an independent mount, the Beast Companion really freezes up, with the feature providing that it will choose to do nothing other than take the Dodge action, while other mounts like a Warhorse would have no problem bucking around and making hoof attacks.
They've recently tried to "fix" the Beast Master, providing a new "Primal Companion" optional variant for it in the Tasha's Cauldron of Everything sourcebook. Did it fix Companions as mounts?
Well now, the Beast by default acts DURING your turn, not just on your initiative count on its own turn. It also isn't locked to a limited menu of actions... There's a weird decision you need to make if riding it: it already acts on your turn like a controlled mount no matter what, but it will be able to take unrestricted actions by giving it a command using your bonus action if you're riding it as an independent mount, or a more limited menu of actions using no action if you're riding it as a controlled mount. Odd.
So now let's turn to the Battlesmith's Steel Defender... surprise surprise, it doesn't work like a Beast Companion, a Primal Companion, or a Find Steed, or a normal horse!
By default, the defender has its own turn, but as discussed, riding it as a controlled mount would arguably make it act on your turn. Its a little weird that this feature was released around the same time as the Primal Companion feature in Tasha's because the decision tree on riding this Defender is totally different. The Primal Companion was going to be on your turn either way, so riding it controlled vs. independent came down to whether you wanted to be able to order it to Dash/Disengage/Dodge using no action but give up ability to attack (controlled), or the ability to let it attack etc if commanded with bonus actions (independent). For the Defender, the tree instead comes down to whether you want the Defender to move on your turn and have limited actions without taking your action to command (controlled), or act on its own turn and have a fuller menu of actions that you can command with a bonus (independent).
If you're confused as to why there'd be.... four different versions of riding a horse/Companion/Defender? Yeah, you're not alone, it makes no sense that "how do I ride a mount?" should be this complicated or inconsistent. Most DMs probably don't try to play this RAW, I would imagine.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
God this is so fundamentally unsatisfying. What needs to happen is that the mounted character needs to be able to move on their turn using the mount's speed. Why the designers didn't add that simple instruction into the rules is beyond me, as it would have fixed everything. The mounted combat rules are so wonky that they never actually grant the rider the ability to share the same space as the mount, even though of course they must. But to elaborate on this, when you have a medium-sized character riding a large-sized mount, which of the four squares would you put them rider on in a gridded battle map?
"Not all those who wander are lost"