I'm curious what more experienced players have done to make having a Mount worth while other than carry stuff. Both in combat and out of combat. Basic mounts? Awakened mounts? Skies the limit as long as it remains close to RAW. Creativity encouraged.
There are all kinds of cool things you can do with a mount, especially with the Mounted Combatant feat, but I would say the number one benefit of riding a (controlled) mount is that you can have use its action to Disengage, allowing you to move around (often up to a speed of 60 feet with many mounts) freely while maintaining both your Action and your Bonus Action.
My friend's paladin summoned a nightmare midair (the wizard cast fly on it), flew into the big bad enemy blimp and was able to use the disengage action while the blimp guards tried to initiate combat. resealed the hole in the blimp, and i (as the DM) ruled that because this was amazing, the fire from the nightmare would make the blimp explode. Unsummoned the mount, freefalling, and as he was going to go splat he resummoned the nightmare and trotted calmly up to the party, with full health. He simply said good day and walked off.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm the idiot that decides to make Phil Swift in DnD.
I would think so. There might be a size issue, though, for some creatures. Centaurs still count as Medium size though they can carry things like a Large size creature and grapple like a Large size creature. So anybody they carry would need to be Small or Tiny in size. I think.
Mounted Combatant as a feat on my paladin was pretty nutty and mounts feel bad otherwise from my experience. You're moving faster than anyone in the party, and you have advantage on most things that aren't massive and that are humanoids just walking on the ground.
You could also go Cavalier, though it isn't necessary to enjoy the mounted experience. I would also go Mounted Combatant if you're going to be focusing on that though, or your mount might just die in a hit or two as most beasties don't have much HP.
I've noticed that Mounted Combatant doesn't actually increase your attack capability, much though, unless the mount is larger than the opponent. Since my mount would be Medium size, that does not leave much room for using the feat to do very much.
But sadly it doesn't - although you and mount share same turn on initiative, the turns must be taken separately, sequentially. Although I reckon most DM's wouldn't get into this utterly needless complication that makes the Mounted Combatant feat and mounted combat in general a LOT less useful.
So although you'd think you could use the mounts 60ft speed to move to mob, hit it over the head with your axe, then disengage and move back to safety, you can't.
You need to do one turn fully, then the other. So, move to the mob on your horse, and disengage, fine. Hit it over the head. Try to move back out of range? No - the horse already had it's turn. And if you have the mount dodge instead of disengage, although disengage strictly affects both you and horse, dodge does not.
I was going to pick a mounted killer with Find Steed and Mounted combatant, until I delved into the rules... I don't like to rely on the good graces or ignorance of DMs.
But sadly it doesn't - although you and mount share same turn on initiative, the turns must be taken separately, sequentially. Although I reckon most DM's wouldn't get into this utterly needless complication that makes the Mounted Combatant feat and mounted combat in general a LOT less useful.
So although you'd think you could use the mounts 60ft speed to move to mob, hit it over the head with your axe, then disengage and move back to safety, you can't.
You need to do one turn fully, then the other. So, move to the mob on your horse, and disengage, fine. Hit it over the head. Try to move back out of range? No - the horse already had it's turn. And if you have the mount dodge instead of disengage, although disengage strictly affects both you and horse, dodge does not.
That's not true, but please cite a source if you disagree as I'd be genuinely interested if there's a ruling out there which goes against common knowledge (wouldn't be the first time).
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.
All of the "basic" mounts are assumed to be trained. When you control a mount, it acts on the same turn as you, not just the same initiative. You determine what its actions are, and those coincide with your own actions. You do not need to resolve your own actions before the mount's actions happen, or vice versa. You can absolutely have your mount move into melee range, make your attacks, have the mount disengage/dash/dodge, and have the mount move away if it still has any movement remaining.
The forms from Find Steed are the "basic" mounts, and are all controllable by their rider.
The forms from Find Greater Steed have some "intelligent creatures", and explicitly state that they are still controlled by the rider.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
"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."
It's initiative changes to match yours, you decide if it goes before or after you, but the turns ARE separate, you don't get to intermingle them as you'd expect to be able to.
To be honest, it just mucks things up for fighting in combat, in a way that you'd not expect. Historically speaking, people fight on horseback, intermingling their fighting actions with the actions of the horse. Jeremy is needlessly complicating things.
You'd have to hope that your DM doesn't get bogged down in such silly rules. I mean, if you didn't attack, your mounted horse could run to mob, then disengage and run back. But if you throw an attack in there, suddenly now it can't do anything else, coz it's turn is over, despite not yet taking the rest of it's movement and it's disengage action. It's a stupid ruling.
I disagree with that. As Sigred pointed out, the rules seem to specify that you control the mount and it acts along with you on your turn. If you then dismount, its initiative has changed to be the same as yours so it will act before/after the player, as per the rules chosen by the player.
Neat. Jeremy's wrong (again). RAW clearly indicates that a controlled mount moves as you direct, and that the mount is capable of taking its action & move on your turn.
So you could have an un-mounted creature take its entire turn, mount it on your turn, and then have the mount immediately take another entire turn... in the same round.
You then also create a situation where you can have your mount go before you, force a situation that would cause you to be unmounted (knocked prone), and end its turn. You then immediately stand up (it's your turn now) for half of your movement, mount the creature with the remaining half of your movement, make all your attacks, end your turn, and now your mount can magically Disengage and move its full speed again. 🙄
His ruling actually breaks the sequence of combat.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I think even Jeremy Crawford realises the rules for controlled mount are stupid.
Had another listen to the Dragon talk where he goes into further detail, and he almost contradicts the rules that he's put out on twitter, sage advice etc. Still not 100% clear, but I'd say it's leaning towards your understanding of truly mounted combat, in his mind at least on this video.
The Dragon Talk was released after this twitter guidance: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/857269467289534464 - "A rider and a controlled mount have separate turns, but they have the same initiative, which means you decide which one goes first. #DnD"
Paraphrasing:-
"Intelligent creatures: They will act independently. You are welcome to communicate your desires to it, but it's up to the creature to decide to follow your instructions. IF the intelligent creature decides, you can control it., you can. That would be a better way of writing the rules. An intelligent mount may decide to do things you don't want flee etc. BUT when it does it's own thing, it gets to take it's full turns as normal - move around on it's turn, ATTACK on it's turn, all the action options, has it's own initiative, even if you're on it's back. If a mount is independent, you have to wait until it reaches the mob before you attack on horseback. Acts like any other creature, but you're on it's back. It's up to the player and the DM, who is controlling that mount at the table - many DMs will say, even though this creature is independent, YOU player go ahead and control it, AND I RECOMMEND THIS OPTIONS TO DM'S. To empower players and let players enjoy that, and the DM has plenty to do already.
If you control the mount, the creatures initiative changes to your initiative. you're now acting as a unit. It still has a turn, but it's turn OVERLAPS with yours, it gets its move, its moving on YOUR turn, so then far easier for your character to co-ordinate with the mount, and it's actions are limited to dodge/dash/disengage. It won't attack. The fact that it can disengage means it can move without opportunity attacks, and the beauty of it acting on your turn, with its turn overlapping with yours, is that also your movement is still free and your actions are still available. So it's a movement and action extension for the rider. A really powerful advantage. Even though it gives up ability to attack, you gain all this on your turn all this potential movement, and a free dodge/dash/disengage, and a dash means even more movement."
That all makes so much more sense that two separate turns that he's discussed previously with same initiative, acting separately and sequentially. Without this same turn / overlapping way of working, mounted combat would be practically useless.
I think I may make mounted paladin after all, for drive-by run/attack/dash attacks with my 10ft Warglaive....
I believe his tweets are wrong. The RAW seem to indicate, as previously stated in this conversation, that you act in tandem (on a controlled mount,) and if you DON'T then riding a mount in combat is absolutely useless. What you have highlighted in red there seems to be the RAI and matches more closely with the RAW as well.
On this occasion, I’m happy to be wrong. It definitely should work this way, for the cohesive, coordinated fighting unit of a player with Find Steed, if nothing else!
"@JeremyECrawford I listen your podcast Dragon Talk: seems like you said that you and the controlled mount have the same turn. Does this mean that the rider and mount share a single turn?"
Reply: "controlled mount has its own turn, but that turn takes place on the same initiative count as the rider’s turn."
That would mean one of you takes a full turn, then other other takes their turn. No more ride-by head cleavings....
Christ Jeremy, make up your damn mind. I know JC tweets are no longer official, so this is something clearly lacking in the errata / sage compendium.
I'm curious what more experienced players have done to make having a Mount worth while other than carry stuff. Both in combat and out of combat. Basic mounts? Awakened mounts? Skies the limit as long as it remains close to RAW. Creativity encouraged.
There are all kinds of cool things you can do with a mount, especially with the Mounted Combatant feat, but I would say the number one benefit of riding a (controlled) mount is that you can have use its action to Disengage, allowing you to move around (often up to a speed of 60 feet with many mounts) freely while maintaining both your Action and your Bonus Action.
My friend's paladin summoned a nightmare midair (the wizard cast fly on it), flew into the big bad enemy blimp and was able to use the disengage action while the blimp guards tried to initiate combat. resealed the hole in the blimp, and i (as the DM) ruled that because this was amazing, the fire from the nightmare would make the blimp explode. Unsummoned the mount, freefalling, and as he was going to go splat he resummoned the nightmare and trotted calmly up to the party, with full health. He simply said good day and walked off.
I'm the idiot that decides to make Phil Swift in DnD.
That sounds pretty awesome lol. How was he able to summon a nightmare?
Find greater steed and DM permission most likely.
Find Greater Steed takes ten minutes to cast... not sure how you could do that while falling.
Centaurs can be used as mounts?
I would think so. There might be a size issue, though, for some creatures. Centaurs still count as Medium size though they can carry things like a Large size creature and grapple like a Large size creature. So anybody they carry would need to be Small or Tiny in size. I think.
Centaurs are Large.
In the MManual, Centaurs are Large. But if you play Centaur as a PC, the size is Medium except for purposes of weight bearing and grappling.
There are game mechanics balance reasons for this involving larger weapon sizes and other stuff.
Mounted Combatant as a feat on my paladin was pretty nutty and mounts feel bad otherwise from my experience. You're moving faster than anyone in the party, and you have advantage on most things that aren't massive and that are humanoids just walking on the ground.
You could also go Cavalier, though it isn't necessary to enjoy the mounted experience. I would also go Mounted Combatant if you're going to be focusing on that though, or your mount might just die in a hit or two as most beasties don't have much HP.
I've noticed that Mounted Combatant doesn't actually increase your attack capability, much though, unless the mount is larger than the opponent. Since my mount would be Medium size, that does not leave much room for using the feat to do very much.
That's how it SHOULD work Jaysburn!
But sadly it doesn't - although you and mount share same turn on initiative, the turns must be taken separately, sequentially. Although I reckon most DM's wouldn't get into this utterly needless complication that makes the Mounted Combatant feat and mounted combat in general a LOT less useful.
So although you'd think you could use the mounts 60ft speed to move to mob, hit it over the head with your axe, then disengage and move back to safety, you can't.
You need to do one turn fully, then the other. So, move to the mob on your horse, and disengage, fine. Hit it over the head. Try to move back out of range? No - the horse already had it's turn. And if you have the mount dodge instead of disengage, although disengage strictly affects both you and horse, dodge does not.
I was going to pick a mounted killer with Find Steed and Mounted combatant, until I delved into the rules... I don't like to rely on the good graces or ignorance of DMs.
That's not true, but please cite a source if you disagree as I'd be genuinely interested if there's a ruling out there which goes against common knowledge (wouldn't be the first time).
All of the "basic" mounts are assumed to be trained. When you control a mount, it acts on the same turn as you, not just the same initiative. You determine what its actions are, and those coincide with your own actions. You do not need to resolve your own actions before the mount's actions happen, or vice versa. You can absolutely have your mount move into melee range, make your attacks, have the mount disengage/dash/dodge, and have the mount move away if it still has any movement remaining.
The forms from Find Steed are the "basic" mounts, and are all controllable by their rider.
The forms from Find Greater Steed have some "intelligent creatures", and explicitly state that they are still controlled by the rider.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Jeremy Crawfords Sage Advice made it clear sadly:
(Rider on controlled mount wants to attack mid-move. Do rider and mount share one turn?)
"controlled mount has its own turn, but that turn takes place on the same initiative count as the rider’s turn."
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/03/14/rider-on-controlled-mount-wants-to-attack-mid-move-do-rider-and-mount-share-one-turn/
"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."
It's initiative changes to match yours, you decide if it goes before or after you, but the turns ARE separate, you don't get to intermingle them as you'd expect to be able to.
Also: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/857269467289534464 - "A rider and a controlled mount have separate turns, but they have the same initiative, which means you decide which one goes first. #DnD"
To be honest, it just mucks things up for fighting in combat, in a way that you'd not expect. Historically speaking, people fight on horseback, intermingling their fighting actions with the actions of the horse. Jeremy is needlessly complicating things.
You'd have to hope that your DM doesn't get bogged down in such silly rules. I mean, if you didn't attack, your mounted horse could run to mob, then disengage and run back. But if you throw an attack in there, suddenly now it can't do anything else, coz it's turn is over, despite not yet taking the rest of it's movement and it's disengage action. It's a stupid ruling.
I disagree with that. As Sigred pointed out, the rules seem to specify that you control the mount and it acts along with you on your turn. If you then dismount, its initiative has changed to be the same as yours so it will act before/after the player, as per the rules chosen by the player.
Neat. Jeremy's wrong (again). RAW clearly indicates that a controlled mount moves as you direct, and that the mount is capable of taking its action & move on your turn.
Further digging himself a hole, he says that mounting a creature automatically grants it another full turn:
So you could have an un-mounted creature take its entire turn, mount it on your turn, and then have the mount immediately take another entire turn... in the same round.
You then also create a situation where you can have your mount go before you, force a situation that would cause you to be unmounted (knocked prone), and end its turn. You then immediately stand up (it's your turn now) for half of your movement, mount the creature with the remaining half of your movement, make all your attacks, end your turn, and now your mount can magically Disengage and move its full speed again. 🙄
His ruling actually breaks the sequence of combat.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I think even Jeremy Crawford realises the rules for controlled mount are stupid.
Had another listen to the Dragon talk where he goes into further detail, and he almost contradicts the rules that he's put out on twitter, sage advice etc. Still not 100% clear, but I'd say it's leaning towards your understanding of truly mounted combat, in his mind at least on this video.
The Dragon Talk was released after this twitter guidance: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/857269467289534464 - "A rider and a controlled mount have separate turns, but they have the same initiative, which means you decide which one goes first. #DnD"
Paraphrasing:-
"Intelligent creatures: They will act independently. You are welcome to communicate your desires to it, but it's up to the creature to decide to follow your instructions. IF the intelligent creature decides, you can control it., you can. That would be a better way of writing the rules. An intelligent mount may decide to do things you don't want flee etc. BUT when it does it's own thing, it gets to take it's full turns as normal - move around on it's turn, ATTACK on it's turn, all the action options, has it's own initiative, even if you're on it's back. If a mount is independent, you have to wait until it reaches the mob before you attack on horseback. Acts like any other creature, but you're on it's back. It's up to the player and the DM, who is controlling that mount at the table - many DMs will say, even though this creature is independent, YOU player go ahead and control it, AND I RECOMMEND THIS OPTIONS TO DM'S. To empower players and let players enjoy that, and the DM has plenty to do already.
If you control the mount, the creatures initiative changes to your initiative. you're now acting as a unit. It still has a turn, but it's turn OVERLAPS with yours, it gets its move, its moving on YOUR turn, so then far easier for your character to co-ordinate with the mount, and it's actions are limited to dodge/dash/disengage. It won't attack. The fact that it can disengage means it can move without opportunity attacks, and the beauty of it acting on your turn, with its turn overlapping with yours, is that also your movement is still free and your actions are still available. So it's a movement and action extension for the rider. A really powerful advantage. Even though it gives up ability to attack, you gain all this on your turn all this potential movement, and a free dodge/dash/disengage, and a dash means even more movement."
Dragon Talk on Mounted Combat with Jeremy Crawford.
That all makes so much more sense that two separate turns that he's discussed previously with same initiative, acting separately and sequentially. Without this same turn / overlapping way of working, mounted combat would be practically useless.
I think I may make mounted paladin after all, for drive-by run/attack/dash attacks with my 10ft Warglaive....
I believe his tweets are wrong. The RAW seem to indicate, as previously stated in this conversation, that you act in tandem (on a controlled mount,) and if you DON'T then riding a mount in combat is absolutely useless. What you have highlighted in red there seems to be the RAI and matches more closely with the RAW as well.
On this occasion, I’m happy to be wrong. It definitely should work this way, for the cohesive, coordinated fighting unit of a player with Find Steed, if nothing else!
EDIT: This is some good in depth discussion on the matter, and it refers to the dragontalk video. https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/68059/does-a-controlled-mount-share-its-riders-turn
Apparently, Jeremy clarified (or muddied, depending on your point of view) the issue AFTER the video -
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/970120823649390592?s=19
"@JeremyECrawford I listen your podcast Dragon Talk: seems like you said that you and the controlled mount have the same turn. Does this mean that the rider and mount share a single turn?"
Reply: "controlled mount has its own turn, but that turn takes place on the same initiative count as the rider’s turn."
That would mean one of you takes a full turn, then other other takes their turn. No more ride-by head cleavings....
Christ Jeremy, make up your damn mind. I know JC tweets are no longer official, so this is something clearly lacking in the errata / sage compendium.