So horses have like 30 hp -ish if I remember correctly... The point here is not 100 hps.
So it seems to me that they would only be viable mounts at low levels... after that the are kinda fail. This doesn't sit well with me as so many Fantasy settings involve cavalry charges of some sort without paper horses.
Secondly, other than speed (movement), I'm not seeing an advantage to being mounted without some kind of special case, a sub-class or feat. Am I missing something? Surely I am. There is a REASON cavalry charges were devastating, and it wasn't just getting a guy with a sword close quickly, though that helped.
Direct references to RAW in responses appreciated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
A warhorse has an average of 19 HP. That's a lot, considering the HP of a 1st level adventurer. They can further be protected by barding and spells like Aid, same as any other party member.
The Mounted Combatant feat grants huge survivability benefits to a mount: it gains the benefits of the Evasion class feature and the rider can redirect any attack to the mount to themselves without spending a reaction. The rider also gets advantage on attacks against creatures smaller than their mount, which plays right into the cavalry charge idea. Mounts summoned with Find Steed and Find Greater Steed can be revived just by casting the spell again, and the rider can share spells that target only the rider with the mount (e.g. Cure Wounds, Protection From Energy, Shield of Faith; with a bit of multiclassing you could add Shield and Absorb Elements).
Even without feats or class features, using a mount lets you attack with a lance one-handed, grants increased movement and enables hit-and-run tactics (rider readies attack, mount disengages and moves past enemy.)
I really wish we had Homebrew subclasses. The Dragoon from Xanathar's Lost Notes to Everything Else makes mounted combat a lot more viable out of the gate without feats.
Stuff that would make sense to me: Add the mount's strength modifier to my damage on a hit with a lance... or divide the speed by 20 and add that to the damage.
"Realism" would say to me it should be some damage modifier bonus with the Feat rather than Advantage on attacks... after all hitting that gnome standing on the ground would not, in fact, be easier, but if I did hit him, it would probably be in the head or neck...thereby doing more damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
The Dragoon from Xanathar's Lost Notes to Everything Else makes mounted combat a lot more viable out of the gate without feats.
It's already viable? Not sure why having to pick a specific subclass is somehow better than having to pick a specific feat at higher levels. Feats work with any class.
Stuff that would make sense to me: Add the mount's strength modifier to my damage on a hit with a lance... or divide the speed by 20 and add that to the damage.
Too complicated. 5e prefers simple rules.
"Realism" would say to me it should be some damage modifier bonus with the Feat rather than Advantage on attacks... after all hitting that gnome standing on the ground would not, in fact, be easier, but if I did hit him, it would probably be in the head or neck...thereby doing more damage.
The horse's momentum is already taken into account when you passively ram a lance into someone one-handed for the same amount of damage you would've done actually swinging it with two hands.
Also it's not like the game incorporates momentum into unmounted combat either. A monk that dashes 70 feet and attacks will do the same damage as monk attacking without moving.
The Dragoon from Xanathar's Lost Notes to Everything Else makes mounted combat a lot more viable out of the gate without feats.
It's already viable? Not sure why having to pick a specific subclass is somehow better than having to pick a specific feat at higher levels. Feats work with any class.
Because if I choose to run a character envisioned as a primarily mounted combatant from the outset it allows me to do so and use my Feat or ability increase for something else. Clearly no one is forced to run a subclass. I take your points about taking feats and buffing mount, etc as much as possible. I also agree that 5e simplifies a lot. I'm suggesting that to me, adding 2 or 3 damage on a horse and removing advantage given in the feat makes more sense.
Either way I appreciate the responses and the thinking through it together.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
Mounted Combat Rules: The mount changes to your mount's initiative and it must act either before or after you. The mount gets 1 move and 1 Action, and the Action options are: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge.
This is the core of the Mount's survivability. 1) Mounts have increased movement. Assume the average (N)PC has a movement of 25 to 30. A Mount has an average movement of 40 to 60. Every turn the mount can do 1 Action: Dash (for more movement), Disengage (not take AoOs when leaving Reach), and Dodge (give DisAdvantage on attack rolls).
Assume that every turn your Mount takes the Dodge action, unless it has a better one. This reduces the amount of incoming attacks your Mount will take especially if it has Barding: Remember "Monsters" are assumed to be proficient with all weapons and armor needed so a "Warhorse" is assumed to be proficient in armor. If you're using a Reach weapon like a Lance then the Mount won't likely need to Disengage and keep Dodging.
This is why I disagree with InquisitiveCoder. He is right it "works", but I think it's clunky and I think it feels neither good nor heroic. He points out that at low levels 19hp is great if you're level 1, but costs 400 gold! In addition there are no Large mounts that cost less then 50 gold and so no starting character can afford one. This is unlikely to be attainable at low levels. Once the party hits 5th level 19 hp isn't that big of a deal. That's less then a 5th lvl Wizard with no Con Mod (22hp). I specifically call out 5th lvl because that's when a Paladin gets Find Steed. The other mounts all have even worse stat blocks. If you take Mounted Combat it means the mount can't be targeted, except by AoEs or Save Spells (they aren't "attacks") and the Mount does get evasion... but not a single Beast is trained Dexterity saves, so the chances it survives a Fireball are miniscule. That Warhorse now has Evasion and a +1 Dex save! If it took the Dodge Action it gets Adv on the save which could help. It either takes no damage (unlikely) or is dead (likely) as the "average damage" of a fireball is 28. That cost is either 400gold gone (likely unless the PC is a Paladin) or a lvl 2 Spell.
Using a Mount in melee means either you stay in close-combat which exposes the mount to danger, Mounted Combat can help mitigate this. The other option is you set yourself to go 1st and use your Action to "Ready" an "Attack" when your close enough to a target. Then the Mount moves and you use your ReAction to attack, interrupting the Mount's turn. This is nice in that the Mount can Dash so it's possible to move 80-120' a turn. I personally think this is garbage, because it requires the PC to give up their Bonus Action and ReAction every single turn.
This is why I think the most effective mount type is Mounted Archery. If your idea is a Mongel-esk rider, especially a Small character on a Medium mount so you can work inside a dungeon. The archer gets improved movement so is unlikely to get into melee. IF the character gets into melee the Mount moves 1st and Disengages and moves out of melee, the rider takes no AoOs because it's "forced movement". Now the Archer or Caster is free to shoot on their turn without DisAdv for being in melee. In Archery the PC is unlikely to lose anything and gain everything, because the fact that they move NOT on their turn isn't likely a penalty. Note: IF you are using a flying mount I recommend a Ring of Feather Fall or the spell Feather Fall otherwise you might take a lot of falling damage!!!
Last option is a Mounted Combat based character combined with a Moon Druid character. This requires both characters working in tandem and the randomness of Initiative can really mess with you. That said I've experienced this and found it to be probably one of the most powerful combination I've ever seen. The "Fighter" takes Mounted Combat and so direct attacks away from the Moon Druid, which has a low AC. The Moon Druid takes Sentinel and so gets a ReAction attack if someone else is targeted. The Mounted Combat character now has Advantage on all targets smaller then the Moon Druid.
@Bunny, re Mounted Archery: Which is ironic since mounted archers IRL are one of the hardest things to be, and one of the least used in fantasy settings.
Well, only one way to see, play it out and see if it is total crap of if it can be mitigated into RP usefulness.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
Keep in mind a lance has reach. You can dash with your mount, stay out of melee of your target, and smack em with your lance as you pass through. Bonus points if you use your multi attack to weave through a crowd and lance multiple foes.
It either takes no damage (unlikely) or is dead (likely) as the "average damage" of a fireball is 28.
It takes half damage even if it fails the save, so you need an average damage of 38 to kill it. That also means any extra HP/temporary HP is worth twice as much. Just casting Aid raises the bar to 48 damage. You can also tell the mount to Dodge every turn without the rider losing any actions and still having above-average mobility.
If you're using a real horse and not a summoned mount, there's no reason the DM can't roll death saves for the mount instead of killing them at 0.
At some point you have to accept that you shouldn't be taking a run-of-the-mill horse to fight Tiamat and expect it to live. If you're going to fight bigger monsters, you should start casting bigger buffs (e.g. Death Ward, Aid cast at a higher level, Protection From Energy) or get a tougher mount.
Keep in mind a lance has reach. You can dash with your mount, stay out of melee of your target, and smack em with your lance as you pass through. Bonus points if you use your multi attack to weave through a crowd and lance multiple foes.
A mount and its riders have separate turns so there's no way to use Extra Attack during a controlled mount's turn, and a controlled mount can't take the Ready action to move during its rider's turn. The only way to do that is with an intelligent, independent mount that can ready a move during the rider's turn. Your best bet for that would be riding a Wild Shaped druid.
You're right my math was a off on the the HP vs. Fireball with Mounted Combat, it will be almost dead and very close to being unhorsed. As a positive a high enough lvl Paladin will improve the saves of his or her mount by their Charisma mod.
There aren't any default options for "tougher mounts". As someone who has played a Moon Druid, the options for Beasts quickly drop after CR:1. My main point is that it's a poor mechanic to build a character concept around. Unfortunately it's a very classical concept and so one a lot of people are interested in. I for one have wanted to play a Halfing Outrider in 5e, but since Mastiffs have a max HP of 5, I gave up on it. Theoretically I could made a Beast Master Ranger, but was unsatisfied with that option. That said I was look at the Mounts section in the basic rules. A elephant is only 200 gold while a Warhorse is 400 gold.
I do think KageAcuma is correct though. Edited as per InquistiveCoder being correct.
Ready Action: "First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it." Attack Action: "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks. Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action." Extra Attack: "you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."
The Fighter declares they will take the Attack Action, when they are in range of an enemy. They would get their full compliment of attackonly a single as part of the Attack Action. The character still can't use Bonus Actions, their Reaction is used up, and they can't Action Surge on another creatures turn... so it limits the options the player has in combat.
There aren't any default options for "tougher mounts".
The rules for mounts have always been open-ended; anything willing, trained and with "appropriate anatomy" will work. Plus, XGtE added some standard options with Find Greater Steed.
The Fighter declares they will take the Attack Action, when they are in range of an enemy. They would get their full compliment of attack as part of the Attack Action. The character still can't use Bonus Actions, their Reaction is used up, and they can't Action Surge on another creatures turn... so it limits the options the player has in combat.
Extra Attack only works on your turn, and the mount and rider still have separate turns even if they happen on the same initiative count. If you ready the Attack action and take it on the mount's turn, you can't use Extra Attack.
So am I hearing that the rules stipulate you must make a held action to attack while mounted?! Where is that specified, cause I just reread PHB and that's not how I read it.
I would assume that depends whether or not the mount is intelligent, no?
Either way, IMO whether RAW or not, it's kind of a dumb way to run that combat.
I think I'll run it like this:
On an intelligent mount, you just declare your intention not to use your movement and instead use the mounts.
If you do so then when the mount approaches any valid target you can interrupt its turn and take yours, then it resumes its own.
That feels way more organic and natural to me.
Thoughts?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
To clarify, other than movement, I'd view it as a joint turn. Dragon swoops in and bites opponent. It's rider then also lances it, rider disengages with a bonus action, because heck, I guess he's a rogue; dragon continues flying forward, triggering an attack on itself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
I'd recommend the full video, but I posted the section where he starts talking about "Controlled Mounts"
The mount acts on the Player's Turn. The mount gets it's movement and (limited) Action during the Players turn. AT 21:00, Jeremy said "Your movement is still free to use on your own turn and all of your actions are available." followed by "The mount becomes a movement and action extension of the rider."
So horses have like 30 hp -ish if I remember correctly... The point here is not 100 hps.
So it seems to me that they would only be viable mounts at low levels... after that the are kinda fail. This doesn't sit well with me as so many Fantasy settings involve cavalry charges of some sort without paper horses.
Secondly, other than speed (movement), I'm not seeing an advantage to being mounted without some kind of special case, a sub-class or feat. Am I missing something? Surely I am. There is a REASON cavalry charges were devastating, and it wasn't just getting a guy with a sword close quickly, though that helped.
Direct references to RAW in responses appreciated.
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
A warhorse has an average of 19 HP. That's a lot, considering the HP of a 1st level adventurer. They can further be protected by barding and spells like Aid, same as any other party member.
The Mounted Combatant feat grants huge survivability benefits to a mount: it gains the benefits of the Evasion class feature and the rider can redirect any attack to the mount to themselves without spending a reaction. The rider also gets advantage on attacks against creatures smaller than their mount, which plays right into the cavalry charge idea. Mounts summoned with Find Steed and Find Greater Steed can be revived just by casting the spell again, and the rider can share spells that target only the rider with the mount (e.g. Cure Wounds, Protection From Energy, Shield of Faith; with a bit of multiclassing you could add Shield and Absorb Elements).
Even without feats or class features, using a mount lets you attack with a lance one-handed, grants increased movement and enables hit-and-run tactics (rider readies attack, mount disengages and moves past enemy.)
I really wish we had Homebrew subclasses. The Dragoon from Xanathar's Lost Notes to Everything Else makes mounted combat a lot more viable out of the gate without feats.
Stuff that would make sense to me: Add the mount's strength modifier to my damage on a hit with a lance... or divide the speed by 20 and add that to the damage.
"Realism" would say to me it should be some damage modifier bonus with the Feat rather than Advantage on attacks... after all hitting that gnome standing on the ground would not, in fact, be easier, but if I did hit him, it would probably be in the head or neck...thereby doing more damage.
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
They're coming soon.
It's already viable? Not sure why having to pick a specific subclass is somehow better than having to pick a specific feat at higher levels. Feats work with any class.
Too complicated. 5e prefers simple rules.
Because if I choose to run a character envisioned as a primarily mounted combatant from the outset it allows me to do so and use my Feat or ability increase for something else. Clearly no one is forced to run a subclass. I take your points about taking feats and buffing mount, etc as much as possible. I also agree that 5e simplifies a lot. I'm suggesting that to me, adding 2 or 3 damage on a horse and removing advantage given in the feat makes more sense.
Either way I appreciate the responses and the thinking through it together.
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
Mounted Combat Rules: The mount changes to your mount's initiative and it must act either before or after you. The mount gets 1 move and 1 Action, and the Action options are: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge.
This is the core of the Mount's survivability. 1) Mounts have increased movement. Assume the average (N)PC has a movement of 25 to 30. A Mount has an average movement of 40 to 60. Every turn the mount can do 1 Action: Dash (for more movement), Disengage (not take AoOs when leaving Reach), and Dodge (give DisAdvantage on attack rolls).
Assume that every turn your Mount takes the Dodge action, unless it has a better one. This reduces the amount of incoming attacks your Mount will take especially if it has Barding: Remember "Monsters" are assumed to be proficient with all weapons and armor needed so a "Warhorse" is assumed to be proficient in armor. If you're using a Reach weapon like a Lance then the Mount won't likely need to Disengage and keep Dodging.
This is why I disagree with InquisitiveCoder. He is right it "works", but I think it's clunky and I think it feels neither good nor heroic.
He points out that at low levels 19hp is great if you're level 1, but costs 400 gold! In addition there are no Large mounts that cost less then 50 gold and so no starting character can afford one.
This is unlikely to be attainable at low levels. Once the party hits 5th level 19 hp isn't that big of a deal. That's less then a 5th lvl Wizard with no Con Mod (22hp). I specifically call out 5th lvl because that's when a Paladin gets Find Steed. The other mounts all have even worse stat blocks.
If you take Mounted Combat it means the mount can't be targeted, except by AoEs or Save Spells (they aren't "attacks") and the Mount does get evasion... but not a single Beast is trained Dexterity saves, so the chances it survives a Fireball are miniscule. That Warhorse now has Evasion and a +1 Dex save! If it took the Dodge Action it gets Adv on the save which could help. It either takes no damage (unlikely) or is dead (likely) as the "average damage" of a fireball is 28. That cost is either 400gold gone (likely unless the PC is a Paladin) or a lvl 2 Spell.
Using a Mount in melee means either you stay in close-combat which exposes the mount to danger, Mounted Combat can help mitigate this. The other option is you set yourself to go 1st and use your Action to "Ready" an "Attack" when your close enough to a target. Then the Mount moves and you use your ReAction to attack, interrupting the Mount's turn. This is nice in that the Mount can Dash so it's possible to move 80-120' a turn.
I personally think this is garbage, because it requires the PC to give up their Bonus Action and ReAction every single turn.
This is why I think the most effective mount type is Mounted Archery. If your idea is a Mongel-esk rider, especially a Small character on a Medium mount so you can work inside a dungeon. The archer gets improved movement so is unlikely to get into melee. IF the character gets into melee the Mount moves 1st and Disengages and moves out of melee, the rider takes no AoOs because it's "forced movement". Now the Archer or Caster is free to shoot on their turn without DisAdv for being in melee.
In Archery the PC is unlikely to lose anything and gain everything, because the fact that they move NOT on their turn isn't likely a penalty.
Note: IF you are using a flying mount I recommend a Ring of Feather Fall or the spell Feather Fall otherwise you might take a lot of falling damage!!!
Last option is a Mounted Combat based character combined with a Moon Druid character. This requires both characters working in tandem and the randomness of Initiative can really mess with you. That said I've experienced this and found it to be probably one of the most powerful combination I've ever seen.
The "Fighter" takes Mounted Combat and so direct attacks away from the Moon Druid, which has a low AC. The Moon Druid takes Sentinel and so gets a ReAction attack if someone else is targeted. The Mounted Combat character now has Advantage on all targets smaller then the Moon Druid.
@Bunny, re Mounted Archery: Which is ironic since mounted archers IRL are one of the hardest things to be, and one of the least used in fantasy settings.
Well, only one way to see, play it out and see if it is total crap of if it can be mitigated into RP usefulness.
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
Keep in mind a lance has reach. You can dash with your mount, stay out of melee of your target, and smack em with your lance as you pass through. Bonus points if you use your multi attack to weave through a crowd and lance multiple foes.
It takes half damage even if it fails the save, so you need an average damage of 38 to kill it. That also means any extra HP/temporary HP is worth twice as much. Just casting Aid raises the bar to 48 damage. You can also tell the mount to Dodge every turn without the rider losing any actions and still having above-average mobility.
If you're using a real horse and not a summoned mount, there's no reason the DM can't roll death saves for the mount instead of killing them at 0.
At some point you have to accept that you shouldn't be taking a run-of-the-mill horse to fight Tiamat and expect it to live. If you're going to fight bigger monsters, you should start casting bigger buffs (e.g. Death Ward, Aid cast at a higher level, Protection From Energy) or get a tougher mount.
You're right my math was a off on the the HP vs. Fireball with Mounted Combat, it will be almost dead and very close to being unhorsed.
As a positive a high enough lvl Paladin will improve the saves of his or her mount by their Charisma mod.
There aren't any default options for "tougher mounts". As someone who has played a Moon Druid, the options for Beasts quickly drop after CR:1.
My main point is that it's a poor mechanic to build a character concept around. Unfortunately it's a very classical concept and so one a lot of people are interested in.
I for one have wanted to play a Halfing Outrider in 5e, but since Mastiffs have a max HP of 5, I gave up on it. Theoretically I could made a Beast Master Ranger, but was unsatisfied with that option.
That said I was look at the Mounts section in the basic rules. A elephant is only 200 gold while a Warhorse is 400 gold.
I do think KageAcuma is correct though.Edited as per InquistiveCoder being correct.Ready Action: "First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it."
Attack Action: "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks. Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action."
Extra Attack: "you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."
The Fighter declares they will take the Attack Action, when they are in range of an enemy. They would get their
full compliment of attackonly a single as part of the Attack Action. The character still can't use Bonus Actions, their Reaction is used up, and they can't Action Surge on another creatures turn... so it limits the options the player has in combat.The rules for mounts have always been open-ended; anything willing, trained and with "appropriate anatomy" will work. Plus, XGtE added some standard options with Find Greater Steed.
You're right that's only on your turn.
That yeah. No the idea of Jousting into melee and attacking on a moving mount it terrible after 5th.
I am even more convinced that Mounted Archery is the way to go.
So am I hearing that the rules stipulate you must make a held action to attack while mounted?! Where is that specified, cause I just reread PHB and that's not how I read it.
I would assume that depends whether or not the mount is intelligent, no?
Either way, IMO whether RAW or not, it's kind of a dumb way to run that combat.
I think I'll run it like this:
That feels way more organic and natural to me.
Thoughts?
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
To clarify, other than movement, I'd view it as a joint turn. Dragon swoops in and bites opponent. It's rider then also lances it, rider disengages with a bonus action, because heck, I guess he's a rogue; dragon continues flying forward, triggering an attack on itself.
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
I think my assessment was incorrect.
Dragon Talk: Sage Advice on Mounted Combat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99tX6tmc73Q&t=19m30s
I'd recommend the full video, but I posted the section where he starts talking about "Controlled Mounts"
The mount acts on the Player's Turn. The mount gets it's movement and (limited) Action during the Players turn. AT 21:00, Jeremy said "Your movement is still free to use on your own turn and all of your actions are available." followed by "The mount becomes a movement and action extension of the rider."
I dont remember the feat, but ther is one that causes the attack that would target your mount to target you instead
My brother played a mounted fighter and he was preety nasty.