I'm not asking in the framework of "It says Dungeons and Dragons!" But more in the mechanical sense.
Follow my thinking here.
Typical mount is a Warhorse and typical rider is a Paladin.
Warhorse's max carry capacity is 540lbs. Which sounds like a lot, but starts to fall short once we start putting on some weights.
First, the Paladin wants to protect his steed. So he'll be putting on some Barding. Platemail Barding weighs 130lbs (Double the weight of Humanoid armor)
Need a Saddle so that's also +30lbs.
Already we are at 160lbs for the horse and we need to get the Rider.
Average weight of a Human in 5e is 89-249 lbs. Giving this the best shot, lets make the rider weigh 89lbs.
The Rider is a Paladin and likely would favor Heavy Armor. Platemail is 65lbs. Ideal combat gear would be a Lance and a Shield. Both weigh 6lbs for a total of 12lbs together and making the base gear weigh 77lbs together. With the rider's weight, that comes out to 166lbs. With the horse's gear, the weight total is 326lbs.
While 326lbs is still less than 540, if using Varient rules, the horse would be Encumbered, if not Heavily Encumbered, making it extremely ineffective in combat. But it gets worse.
Paladin needs an unmounted weapon. Longsword will be an extra 3lbs. Javelins are part of starting gear and five of those are 10lbs Explorer's Packs are typical so that's another 59lbs. This together comes to 72 extra pounds for a grand total of 398lbson the Horse. Completely heavily Encumbered. And this is with the lightest human possible. The heaviest is 249lbs, a 160lb difference and enough to completely tip over the scale and make the horse collapse under the weight.
So. Do we ignore the weight rules when it comes to mounts or put our characters on diets?
First, the Paladin wants to protect his steed. So he'll be putting on some Barding. Platemail Barding weighs 130lbs (Double the weight of Humanoid armor)
Here's the first issue. I know the rules technically say you can make barding out of any armor type, but I'm fairly sure it never went as far as full plate in practice; the horse's legs weren't covered in plate. (If any history buffs could chime in, that'd be great.)
If you go down to half plate you shave off 50 pounds and you can stay under the 360 pound threshold for heavy encumbrance with ease.
Javelins are part of starting gear and five of those are 10lbs
They're not going to be carrying javelins; there's literally nowhere to put them. They only have two hands and both are already occupied.
Explorer's Packs are typical so that's another 59lbs.
Pretty sure knights didn't ride into battle wearing huge backpacks full of camping gear. You're asking far too much of this poor horse. The paladin should buy a pack mule or hire a helper to carry their junk.
The variant rules are variant, and this should be considered as a problem with the variant rules rather than with the balance on the warhorse. As for the rest of it, the total is below carrying capacity and thus doesn't hinder the animal. Even using the variant rules, heavily encumbered reduces the mount's speed to 40' and gives disadvantage on attacks and checks, which seems appropriate. They're still significantly faster than infantry, especially since the mount can use dash/disengage without losing too much.
While the typical rider is a paladin, a paladin has less need of barding for their mount as losing their mount is an inconvenience at worst. For non-paladins full platemail barding would still be relatively rare as it would cost 3000 gp to protect a horse worth 400gp.
Realistically, mounted combatants would only really have barding on their mounts when moving as part of a military formation. The riders walking alongside while not in combat and making use of logistics to take care of most of their supplies.
Get a Donkey on a rope to carry your extra stuff. Quit trying to murder your steed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes, you are correct that if you put all that CRAP on a horse, he can not move
As others have stated, nobody does that. Particularly the Full Plate for a horse. Such an item would involve armoring the legs of a horse. NOBODY armors a horses legs. Typical horse barding is chain shirt or the equivalent of a breastplate. Look at this picture of real life barding:
If you are wealthy enough to afford: a War horse (400 gp) + Full Plate (1,500) and barding (x2 cost) then you also either have a bag of holding type object or a Squire on his own mount. That is where all your equipment besides armor, weapons, barding goes.
Javelins are part of starting gear and five of those are 10lbs
They're not going to be carrying javelins; there's literally nowhere to put them. They only have two hands and both are already occupied.
That's included with the Longsword to cover the possibly of having to dismount, especially in combat.
Historically speaking, any knight (landed noble of high enough wealth and social rank) would have at least 1 squire, and a pack animal in addition to their Warhorse. The warhorse typically did not wear barding for regular travel (the knight also typically traveled lightly armored) unless they were in extremely hostile territory. When just traveling they typically wore probably just mail (Chain mail in modern language) or even only a Gambeson (padded armor in D&D) and the horse went unarmored.
When they were preparing for a battle, only then would they get themselves and their mounts fully armored. Under those circumstances, the horse would have some where between Mail and Half Platebarding and military saddle; the rider would have been wearing between Mail and Plate armor, a shield, lance, Longsword (closer to Greatsword than D&D makes them out to be, probably should be 2d4 or at least 1d10 with versatile), and an Arming Sword* for which there is no D&D equivalent because it is unnecessary for game statistics. That’s all they would carry under battle conditions.
*The D&D equivalent to an Arming Sword would be a Longsword (1d8) without versatile. If the Longsword had 2d4 or 1d10 with Versatile and the Greatsword had 2d8, then the Arming Sword would have the current Longsword stats. Obviously you can see why they did not do that.
What I'm saying is the javelins are something you'd have to carry by hand and you're already assuming a lance in one hand and a shield in the other.
I know people are against the video game trope of a guy carrying around a full armory, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow a javelin somehow strapped across the back. Or in this case, in some kind of holster attached to the saddle.
Also, that barding won’t help against a fireball. That’s the real reason mounts are bad in D&D. A warhorse has 19 hp and a +1dex save. The first time the meet an AoE spell is usually the end of them.
I know people are against the video game trope of a guy carrying around a full armory, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow a javelin somehow strapped across the back. Or in this case, in some kind of holster attached to the saddle.
There's seriously no reasonable way to carry them. There is no quiver or holster that you could use while riding that wouldn't be incredibly inconvenient. The rider already needs to hold the horse's reins in addition to a lance and a shield, and in all likelihood that shield has a strap running across the rider's back that could get tangled up with the hypothetical javelins. They're definitely going to need a pack mule or squire to carry the rest of their adventuring gear; why not leave the javelins with them? They were mainly used by infantry anyways.
Also, that barding won’t help against a fireball. That’s the real reason mounts are bad in D&D. A warhorse has 19 hp and a +1dex save. The first time the meet an AoE spell is usually the end of them.
There's ways to mitigate that. The Dodge action will give them advantage on Dexterity saving throws. A rider with the Mounted Combatant feat will allow the mount to take half damage on a failed DEX save and no damage if they succeed, in addition to giving the rider the ability to take hits aimed at the mount. If you combine both options that makes them 2 to 3 times harder to kill via area damage.
And if we're talking paladins specifically, Heroism and Bless are inexpensive ways to improve the resilience of their mount, and starting at 6th level Aura of Protection kicks in to improve the mount's saves.
Not at a computer to work the math right now, but I'll be running these tests with a Halfling Paladin and a Warhound/Mastiff mount as well as see if there is a mount option that could carry the heaviest possible rider using the suggestions given here.
I know people are against the video game trope of a guy carrying around a full armory, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow a javelin somehow strapped across the back. Or in this case, in some kind of holster attached to the saddle.
There's seriously no reasonable way to carry them. There is no quiver or holster that you could use while riding that wouldn't be incredibly inconvenient. The rider already needs to hold the horse's reins in addition to a lance and a shield, and in all likelihood that shield has a strap running across the rider's back that could get tangled up with the hypothetical javelins. They're definitely going to need a pack mule or squire to carry the rest of their adventuring gear; why not leave the javelins with them? They were mainly used by infantry anyways.
Also, that barding won’t help against a fireball. That’s the real reason mounts are bad in D&D. A warhorse has 19 hp and a +1dex save. The first time the meet an AoE spell is usually the end of them.
There's ways to mitigate that. The Dodge action will give them advantage on Dexterity saving throws. A rider with the Mounted Combatant feat will allow the mount to take half damage on a failed DEX save and no damage if they succeed, in addition to giving the rider the ability to take hits aimed at the mount. If you combine both options that makes them 2 to 3 times harder to kill via area damage.
And if we're talking paladins specifically, Heroism and Bless are inexpensive ways to improve the resilience of their mount, and starting at 6th level Aura of Protection kicks in to improve the mount's saves.
This all assumes you get your turn before the enemy or metagame the need for all these preparations.
Well yes, being surprised is generally not good for you whether you're a horse or not. The feat always works though and that's by far the biggest factor.
In the real world, most people hear 'javelin" and think of the huge things designed for sports. Olympic Javelins are bigger than people - even High School javelins are 8 ft long. Those are not what D&D means.
A D&D javelin is more like the old Roman or Greek javelins, which were basically a short spear often designed to become useless after one blow. So the enemy could not throw them back at you till they were fixed. The Greek ones were called Pilum and were under 6 ft. The Roman ones were closer to 4 ft and were often strapped to a large shield for easy storage.
That said, Iamspata is wrong.
There were also several calvary regiments that utilized thrown "javelins". Gaul, Iberia, and Numidia all used light calvary that carried short throwing spears, obviously javelins. Those were more similar to the roman ones and strapped to the saddle or other tackle when not in use. Being light calvary, they did NOT wear much armor themselves, let alone use barding on their horses. They focused on speed.
Coder, you are 100% right, but I think what you are suggesting is unlikely in play. Like wtf is saying, there’s a lot of ifs involved to make it work. Pallys don’t have enough feats to go spending one on mounted combatant. Maybe a fighter could, but it’s still not that good of a choice. It’s too niche and you could go many sessions without it ever coming up. Are you going to take a +2 to str, which will matter every time you make an attack, or +2 to cha, which will help you a dozen different ways every game. Or will you take mounted combatant that, if you’re lucky, every couple sessions, maybe, there will be a situation where you actually ride your mount in a fight. It actually makes less sense for a pally to take a feat to protect a mount, since they can just cast find steed and replace a dead horse easily enough.
Dodge would be very useful to take while mounted, if you remember to do that instead of having the horse do something else. And most enemies, I’d think, would rather attack the rider than the horse, so yes, while you could mitigate direct attacks, but the bigger issue is AoEs. When those come up, Without the feat, you’re screwed. If you cast bless, and protect your horse instead of a party member, be prepared for an upset party member. And heroism, spending a slot on a concentration spell to give your horse 1-2, maybe 3 hp, which is not likely enough to save them from that fireball, instead of using that slot for smiting doesn’t make sense.
I’d love a way for mounts to work, they’re a classic element of fantasy that just doesn’t work in D&D. They need to find a way for them to scale with level. Like the new ranger beast companion. That could be cool. The weight capacity thing, tbh, I’m not as worried about, but I’ve never bothered with encumbrance rules for my character, I’m certainly not going to for my horse.
Coder, you are 100% right, but I think what you are suggesting is unlikely in play. Like wtf is saying, there’s a lot of ifs involved to make it work. Pallys don’t have enough feats to go spending one on mounted combatant. Maybe a fighter could, but it’s still not that good of a choice. It’s too niche and you could go many sessions without it ever coming up.
I think you'd be surprised what a player is willing to do when they're invested in a particular character concept or play style. I also think you're underestimating the power of Mounted Combatant. It's not just good for the mount, it's also very powerful offensively against anything Medium-sized or smaller.
This is something that ought to be talked about in session 0 anyways. If a player wants to have a mount, it's the DM's job to try to make that feasible on a regular basis, even if it's not all the time.
Dodge would be very useful to take while mounted, if you remember to do that instead of having the horse do something else.
Why wouldn't you? This is like saying "Disengage would be a very useful action to take when you need to run away, if you remember to do that instead of attacking." It's silly to argue based on the assumption that the player will be utterly incompetent; mounts are the least of their problems if that's the case.
And most enemies, I’d think, would rather attack the rider than the horse, so yes, while you could mitigate direct attacks, but the bigger issue is AoEs. When those come up, Without the feat, you’re screwed.
So take the feat. This is working as intended. If you galloped into a mine field with a run-of-the-mill horse you wouldn't expect it to come out of that OK. The same is true of fireballs and a dragon's breath. Invest in protection, a better mount, or keep your mundane horse out of obviously hazardous situations. The game's designers are giving you a solution so heroic characters can take their mounts on heroic adventures and stand a chance. Find Steed makes this even easier by giving you an immortal mount that can be summoned out of thin air or dismissed. Find Greater Steed will give you something that can go toe to toe with far stronger monsters by the time your party's thinking of doing that regularly.
If you cast bless, and protect your horse instead of a party member, be prepared for an upset party member.
I've been in multiple groups that had animal companions and less powerful NPCs for one reason or another and the players have generally been supportive of pitching in to keep the vulnerable members safe, just like they've always prioritized Death Ward on the squishy wizard over the heavily armored fighter.
And heroism, spending a slot on a concentration spell to give your horse 1-2, maybe 3 hp, which is not likely enough to save them from that fireball, instead of using that slot for smiting doesn’t make sense.
A Paladin using a mount summoned by Find Steed can share spells they cast that target only themselves, which means the paladin can target themselves with Heroism and share it with their mount; you're getting a two-for-one deal there. And no, 2-3 HP one time isn't going to make a big difference, but it adds up over the course of combat and when we're talking about creatures with 20-30 HP it can mean the difference between being knocked unconscious or not. The average damage of a fireball is 28. That automatically becomes 19 with the feat on a failed save.
I listed those as low-hanging fruit that a Paladin player can rely on as early as 2nd level. There's obviously higher level alternatives that become practical as you reach higher (and more dangerous) levels, especially if you're willing to assume a supportive party instead of relying fully on the paladin. Aid is an obvious one that's pretty cheap for a cleric to cast by the time constant fireballs are a concern, and can benefit two other party members as well.
I wasn't trying to argue with you. Like I said, coder, you are 100 percent right. You can make it work. Just that its a big and not practical investment in terms of things like feats and spells. There's the opportunity cost of other feats you aren't taking (or in the case of paladins, ASIs, which they typically need). You can take mounted combatant, and it's very useful when you're fighting on a horse. Very useful, no argument. But if you are ever in a fight where you aren't mounted, you've got a feat slot you spent and you are getting no use from it. Compare that to a str or cha bump, which you will use in every fight mounted or no, and which can and will come up in out of combat situations, too. Or most other feats, which will come up in every fight, whether or not you are on a horse. The choice is easy. And you can use a spell to buff a horse, sure, but that's another party member who isn't getting help. And those Heroism hp or bless buffs only last until you fail a concentration check. Or if you decide to cast a smite spell. You are sacrificing a lot to try and keep that horse alive, and it's not really worth it.
And as I'd brought up, and you did, there's find steed. Are you going to spend a feat, which you get 2-3 of in most campaigns to protect the steed, or a level 2 spell slot which you get a couple of per day. Why use the feat, when you can just get a new horse every morning. And on those days when you're indoors, you don't have to cast it at all, and now you've got some added flexibility. You can leave your mystical horse at the door, but the feat will follow you everywhere. Find steed is a reason not to take the feat. It makes your mount easily replaceable, and not in as much need of protection.
As far as dodging, I meant me. I'd totally forget to use it. Or I'd have the horse attack and go out blaze of glory style. But you're right, I shouldn't assume others are as incompetent as I am :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not asking in the framework of "It says Dungeons and Dragons!" But more in the mechanical sense.
Follow my thinking here.
Typical mount is a Warhorse and typical rider is a Paladin.
Warhorse's max carry capacity is 540lbs. Which sounds like a lot, but starts to fall short once we start putting on some weights.
First, the Paladin wants to protect his steed. So he'll be putting on some Barding. Platemail Barding weighs 130lbs (Double the weight of Humanoid armor)
Need a Saddle so that's also +30lbs.
Already we are at 160lbs for the horse and we need to get the Rider.
Average weight of a Human in 5e is 89-249 lbs. Giving this the best shot, lets make the rider weigh 89lbs.
The Rider is a Paladin and likely would favor Heavy Armor. Platemail is 65lbs. Ideal combat gear would be a Lance and a Shield. Both weigh 6lbs for a total of 12lbs together and making the base gear weigh 77lbs together. With the rider's weight, that comes out to 166lbs. With the horse's gear, the weight total is 326lbs.
While 326lbs is still less than 540, if using Varient rules, the horse would be Encumbered, if not Heavily Encumbered, making it extremely ineffective in combat. But it gets worse.
Paladin needs an unmounted weapon. Longsword will be an extra 3lbs.
Javelins are part of starting gear and five of those are 10lbs
Explorer's Packs are typical so that's another 59lbs.
This together comes to 72 extra pounds for a grand total of 398lbs on the Horse. Completely heavily Encumbered. And this is with the lightest human possible. The heaviest is 249lbs, a 160lb difference and enough to completely tip over the scale and make the horse collapse under the weight.
So. Do we ignore the weight rules when it comes to mounts or put our characters on diets?
Here's the first issue. I know the rules technically say you can make barding out of any armor type, but I'm fairly sure it never went as far as full plate in practice; the horse's legs weren't covered in plate. (If any history buffs could chime in, that'd be great.)
If you go down to half plate you shave off 50 pounds and you can stay under the 360 pound threshold for heavy encumbrance with ease.
They're not going to be carrying javelins; there's literally nowhere to put them. They only have two hands and both are already occupied.
Pretty sure knights didn't ride into battle wearing huge backpacks full of camping gear. You're asking far too much of this poor horse. The paladin should buy a pack mule or hire a helper to carry their junk.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The variant rules are variant, and this should be considered as a problem with the variant rules rather than with the balance on the warhorse. As for the rest of it, the total is below carrying capacity and thus doesn't hinder the animal. Even using the variant rules, heavily encumbered reduces the mount's speed to 40' and gives disadvantage on attacks and checks, which seems appropriate. They're still significantly faster than infantry, especially since the mount can use dash/disengage without losing too much.
While the typical rider is a paladin, a paladin has less need of barding for their mount as losing their mount is an inconvenience at worst. For non-paladins full platemail barding would still be relatively rare as it would cost 3000 gp to protect a horse worth 400gp.
Realistically, mounted combatants would only really have barding on their mounts when moving as part of a military formation. The riders walking alongside while not in combat and making use of logistics to take care of most of their supplies.
Get a Donkey on a rope to carry your extra stuff. Quit trying to murder your steed.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Oh a lot of good points here I didn't fully consider. I guess I was aiming for the high numbers a bit too much.
That's included with the Longsword to cover the possibly of having to dismount, especially in combat.
What I'm saying is the javelins are something you'd have to carry by hand and you're already assuming a lance in one hand and a shield in the other.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Historically speaking, any knight (landed noble of high enough wealth and social rank) would have at least 1 squire, and a pack animal in addition to their Warhorse. The warhorse typically did not wear barding for regular travel (the knight also typically traveled lightly armored) unless they were in extremely hostile territory. When just traveling they typically wore probably just mail (Chain mail in modern language) or even only a Gambeson (padded armor in D&D) and the horse went unarmored.
When they were preparing for a battle, only then would they get themselves and their mounts fully armored. Under those circumstances, the horse would have some where between Mail and Half Plate barding and military saddle; the rider would have been wearing between Mail and Plate armor, a shield, lance, Longsword (closer to Greatsword than D&D makes them out to be, probably should be 2d4 or at least 1d10 with versatile), and an Arming Sword* for which there is no D&D equivalent because it is unnecessary for game statistics. That’s all they would carry under battle conditions.
*The D&D equivalent to an Arming Sword would be a Longsword (1d8) without versatile. If the Longsword had 2d4 or 1d10 with Versatile and the Greatsword had 2d8, then the Arming Sword would have the current Longsword stats. Obviously you can see why they did not do that.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I know people are against the video game trope of a guy carrying around a full armory, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow a javelin somehow strapped across the back. Or in this case, in some kind of holster attached to the saddle.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Also, that barding won’t help against a fireball. That’s the real reason mounts are bad in D&D. A warhorse has 19 hp and a +1dex save. The first time the meet an AoE spell is usually the end of them.
There's seriously no reasonable way to carry them. There is no quiver or holster that you could use while riding that wouldn't be incredibly inconvenient. The rider already needs to hold the horse's reins in addition to a lance and a shield, and in all likelihood that shield has a strap running across the rider's back that could get tangled up with the hypothetical javelins. They're definitely going to need a pack mule or squire to carry the rest of their adventuring gear; why not leave the javelins with them? They were mainly used by infantry anyways.
There's ways to mitigate that. The Dodge action will give them advantage on Dexterity saving throws. A rider with the Mounted Combatant feat will allow the mount to take half damage on a failed DEX save and no damage if they succeed, in addition to giving the rider the ability to take hits aimed at the mount. If you combine both options that makes them 2 to 3 times harder to kill via area damage.
And if we're talking paladins specifically, Heroism and Bless are inexpensive ways to improve the resilience of their mount, and starting at 6th level Aura of Protection kicks in to improve the mount's saves.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Historically, when javelins were used, cavalry was not, and by the time cavalry was more popular, javelins were obsolete.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Not at a computer to work the math right now, but I'll be running these tests with a Halfling Paladin and a Warhound/Mastiff mount as well as see if there is a mount option that could carry the heaviest possible rider using the suggestions given here.
This all assumes you get your turn before the enemy or metagame the need for all these preparations.
Well yes, being surprised is generally not good for you whether you're a horse or not. The feat always works though and that's by far the biggest factor.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
RAW, javelins fit in a magical Quiver of Elhonna.
In the real world, most people hear 'javelin" and think of the huge things designed for sports. Olympic Javelins are bigger than people - even High School javelins are 8 ft long. Those are not what D&D means.
A D&D javelin is more like the old Roman or Greek javelins, which were basically a short spear often designed to become useless after one blow. So the enemy could not throw them back at you till they were fixed. The Greek ones were called Pilum and were under 6 ft. The Roman ones were closer to 4 ft and were often strapped to a large shield for easy storage.
That said, Iamspata is wrong.
There were also several calvary regiments that utilized thrown "javelins". Gaul, Iberia, and Numidia all used light calvary that carried short throwing spears, obviously javelins. Those were more similar to the roman ones and strapped to the saddle or other tackle when not in use. Being light calvary, they did NOT wear much armor themselves, let alone use barding on their horses. They focused on speed.
Coder, you are 100% right, but I think what you are suggesting is unlikely in play. Like wtf is saying, there’s a lot of ifs involved to make it work. Pallys don’t have enough feats to go spending one on mounted combatant. Maybe a fighter could, but it’s still not that good of a choice. It’s too niche and you could go many sessions without it ever coming up. Are you going to take a +2 to str, which will matter every time you make an attack, or +2 to cha, which will help you a dozen different ways every game. Or will you take mounted combatant that, if you’re lucky, every couple sessions, maybe, there will be a situation where you actually ride your mount in a fight. It actually makes less sense for a pally to take a feat to protect a mount, since they can just cast find steed and replace a dead horse easily enough.
Dodge would be very useful to take while mounted, if you remember to do that instead of having the horse do something else. And most enemies, I’d think, would rather attack the rider than the horse, so yes, while you could mitigate direct attacks, but the bigger issue is AoEs. When those come up, Without the feat, you’re screwed.
If you cast bless, and protect your horse instead of a party member, be prepared for an upset party member. And heroism, spending a slot on a concentration spell to give your horse 1-2, maybe 3 hp, which is not likely enough to save them from that fireball, instead of using that slot for smiting doesn’t make sense.
I’d love a way for mounts to work, they’re a classic element of fantasy that just doesn’t work in D&D. They need to find a way for them to scale with level. Like the new ranger beast companion. That could be cool.
The weight capacity thing, tbh, I’m not as worried about, but I’ve never bothered with encumbrance rules for my character, I’m certainly not going to for my horse.
I think the easiest solution is to just give max HP instead of average if the situation warrants it. A Warhorse with 33 HP vs 19 HP is a no brainer.
I think you'd be surprised what a player is willing to do when they're invested in a particular character concept or play style. I also think you're underestimating the power of Mounted Combatant. It's not just good for the mount, it's also very powerful offensively against anything Medium-sized or smaller.
This is something that ought to be talked about in session 0 anyways. If a player wants to have a mount, it's the DM's job to try to make that feasible on a regular basis, even if it's not all the time.
Why wouldn't you? This is like saying "Disengage would be a very useful action to take when you need to run away, if you remember to do that instead of attacking." It's silly to argue based on the assumption that the player will be utterly incompetent; mounts are the least of their problems if that's the case.
So take the feat. This is working as intended. If you galloped into a mine field with a run-of-the-mill horse you wouldn't expect it to come out of that OK. The same is true of fireballs and a dragon's breath. Invest in protection, a better mount, or keep your mundane horse out of obviously hazardous situations. The game's designers are giving you a solution so heroic characters can take their mounts on heroic adventures and stand a chance. Find Steed makes this even easier by giving you an immortal mount that can be summoned out of thin air or dismissed. Find Greater Steed will give you something that can go toe to toe with far stronger monsters by the time your party's thinking of doing that regularly.
I've been in multiple groups that had animal companions and less powerful NPCs for one reason or another and the players have generally been supportive of pitching in to keep the vulnerable members safe, just like they've always prioritized Death Ward on the squishy wizard over the heavily armored fighter.
A Paladin using a mount summoned by Find Steed can share spells they cast that target only themselves, which means the paladin can target themselves with Heroism and share it with their mount; you're getting a two-for-one deal there. And no, 2-3 HP one time isn't going to make a big difference, but it adds up over the course of combat and when we're talking about creatures with 20-30 HP it can mean the difference between being knocked unconscious or not. The average damage of a fireball is 28. That automatically becomes 19 with the feat on a failed save.
I listed those as low-hanging fruit that a Paladin player can rely on as early as 2nd level. There's obviously higher level alternatives that become practical as you reach higher (and more dangerous) levels, especially if you're willing to assume a supportive party instead of relying fully on the paladin. Aid is an obvious one that's pretty cheap for a cleric to cast by the time constant fireballs are a concern, and can benefit two other party members as well.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I wasn't trying to argue with you. Like I said, coder, you are 100 percent right. You can make it work. Just that its a big and not practical investment in terms of things like feats and spells. There's the opportunity cost of other feats you aren't taking (or in the case of paladins, ASIs, which they typically need). You can take mounted combatant, and it's very useful when you're fighting on a horse. Very useful, no argument. But if you are ever in a fight where you aren't mounted, you've got a feat slot you spent and you are getting no use from it. Compare that to a str or cha bump, which you will use in every fight mounted or no, and which can and will come up in out of combat situations, too. Or most other feats, which will come up in every fight, whether or not you are on a horse. The choice is easy. And you can use a spell to buff a horse, sure, but that's another party member who isn't getting help. And those Heroism hp or bless buffs only last until you fail a concentration check. Or if you decide to cast a smite spell. You are sacrificing a lot to try and keep that horse alive, and it's not really worth it.
And as I'd brought up, and you did, there's find steed. Are you going to spend a feat, which you get 2-3 of in most campaigns to protect the steed, or a level 2 spell slot which you get a couple of per day. Why use the feat, when you can just get a new horse every morning. And on those days when you're indoors, you don't have to cast it at all, and now you've got some added flexibility. You can leave your mystical horse at the door, but the feat will follow you everywhere. Find steed is a reason not to take the feat. It makes your mount easily replaceable, and not in as much need of protection.
As far as dodging, I meant me. I'd totally forget to use it. Or I'd have the horse attack and go out blaze of glory style. But you're right, I shouldn't assume others are as incompetent as I am :)