D&D 5E Animal Companions & Mounted Combat confusion

Snapdragyn · Aug 29, 2014

[To avoid confusion w/ the long-standing abbreviation for Armor Class, I've used ACo for Animal Companion, unlike in the Ranger thread where AC is used for that as well.]

I'm working up a Beastmaster Ranger - I want to see how they actually play vs. the weak appearance they have compared to the Hunter when theorycrafting, & we already have a Hunter ranger in the group for side-by-side evaluation.

Two points (so far!) I've run into where I'm unclear:

1) If a Small race (halfling or gnome) has a Medium ACo, they can use it as a mount. However, the mounted combat rules state that a controlled mount only has 3 options for actions (AFB, but I think it was Dash, Disengage, & um... Dodge?) - none of which is attack. An uncontrolled mount, however, can act as normal, including making attacks.

Would a small ranger riding a medium ACo without bit & bridle, but issuing verbal commands (Beastmasters can freely direct their ACo's movement verbally) count as a controlled mount, or uncontrolled mount? This is central to the build: a wolf-riding TWF gnome, who grants advantage to his wolf ACo by being on its back (wolf Pack Tactics feature) & gets an offhand attack as a bonus action - at advantage if the wolf successfully knocks its target prone.

NOTE: I don't think the mention of intelligence in the mounted combat rules is crucial here, since a warhorse is not an intelligent mount either but clearly is meant to attack while ridden; the key seems to be in how we define 'uncontrolled'.
- Drop the reins on the warhorse - uncontrolled & attack-capable.
- Pick them up & ride it galloping after the escaping BBEG - controlled & can't attack.
The interaction between mount rules & ACo rules, however, is confounding me. If nothing else, it seems odd that I could yell 'go there', then have the ACo attack if I'm standing right next to it (or 100' away), but if I'm sitting on its back & yell 'go there' suddenly it's unable to attack. o_0 (OTOH, this may just be part of the 'I'm too stupid to keep biting the thing I just bit unless you tell me to every 6 seconds, & will stand here drooling until you say otherwise' nonsense that is 5e ACos.)

2) ACo hp: Higher of <max for its type> or <ranger proficiency bonus x4>. My question: would the latter option then add Con bonus, or does it override Con mod to hp to just be a flat hp? If it's the latter, you get into some really quirky rules territory - does that mean that changes to the ACo's Con would never affect its hp? Do we now have ACos that are immune to the negative effects of Con drain?

The Crimson Binome · Aug 29, 2014

Snapdragyn said:
If nothing else, it seems odd that I could yell 'go there', then have the ACo attack if I'm standing right next to it (or 100' away), but if I'm sitting on its back & yell 'go there' suddenly it's unable to attack.

It seems perfectly normal to me that a wolf is unable to bite while a gnome is riding it. The movement required to attack is just not conducive to carrying a rider who is also potentially attacking (or casting a spell).

This would set an incredibly clear line for what is controlled or uncontrolled - i.e. a mount bearing a rider is controlled, and anything not bearing a rider is uncontrolled. The only grey space there is when you're off of the mount, but still leading it, which isn't something that comes up terribly often in combat.

Snapdragyn said:
ACo hp: Higher of <max for its type> or <ranger proficiency bonus x4>. My question: would the latter option then add Con bonus, or does it override Con mod to hp to just be a flat hp? If it's the latter, you get into some really quirky rules territory - does that mean that changes to the ACo's Con would never affect its hp? Do we now have ACos that are immune to the negative effects of Con drain?

The latter option is, I am fairly certain, supposed to be Ranger level x 4. Your cat or wolf or whatever has roughly the same HP as a wizard with Con 10.

And, like anything else that gives you a choice between calculations, sometimes one of the factors gets ignored. You can either have "normal hit points for its level, factoring in Con and whatever else", or you have "Level x 4". Pick a formula, and stick with it. If the other formula would give you a better number, then use that one instead. If your wolf loses Con while its HP are based on your level, then the change in its Con does not affect its HP, in much the same way that a heavily armored paladin is still as hard to injure after she suffers Dexterity loss.

Not that stat drain is even a thing in this edition. I mean, it's not, is it?

ChaosDent · Aug 29, 2014

By my reading of the rules, acting independently allows a mount to move and attack, but it prevents the rider from having any influence on its actions. This is described as a potential disadvantage, such as the mount running away in fear or moving to eat an fallen enemy. I would argue that a companion as a mount would still choose to follow the ranger's commands (as per the ranger's companion feature) if you allow it to act "independently". This way the companion behaves consistently whether you are mounted or not. The ranger-companion duo doesn't suddenly gain an extra attack when paired up as mount and rider and the ranger doesn't risk losing control of their companion.

ccooke · Aug 29, 2014

Snapdragyn said:
[To avoid confusion w/ the long-standing abbreviation for Armor Class, I've used ACo for Animal Companion, unlike in the Ranger thread where AC is used for that as well.]

I'm working up a Beastmaster Ranger - I want to see how they actually play vs. the weak appearance they have compared to the Hunter when theorycrafting, & we already have a Hunter ranger in the group for side-by-side evaluation.

Two points (so far!) I've run into where I'm unclear:

1) If a Small race (halfling or gnome) has a Medium ACo, they can use it as a mount. However, the mounted combat rules state that a controlled mount only has 3 options for actions (AFB, but I think it was Dash, Disengage, & um... Dodge?) - none of which is attack. An uncontrolled mount, however, can act as normal, including making attacks.

Would a small ranger riding a medium ACo without bit & bridle, but issuing verbal commands (Beastmasters can freely direct their ACo's movement verbally) count as a controlled mount, or uncontrolled mount? This is central to the build: a wolf-riding TWF gnome, who grants advantage to his wolf ACo by being on its back (wolf Pack Tactics feature) & gets an offhand attack as a bonus action - at advantage if the wolf successfully knocks its target prone.

NOTE: I don't think the mention of intelligence in the mounted combat rules is crucial here, since a warhorse is not an intelligent mount either but clearly is meant to attack while ridden; the key seems to be in how we define 'uncontrolled'.
- Drop the reins on the warhorse - uncontrolled & attack-capable.
- Pick them up & ride it galloping after the escaping BBEG - controlled & can't attack.
The interaction between mount rules & ACo rules, however, is confounding me. If nothing else, it seems odd that I could yell 'go there', then have the ACo attack if I'm standing right next to it (or 100' away), but if I'm sitting on its back & yell 'go there' suddenly it's unable to attack. o_0 (OTOH, this may just be part of the 'I'm too stupid to keep biting the thing I just bit unless you tell me to every 6 seconds, & will stand here drooling until you say otherwise' nonsense that is 5e ACos.)

2) ACo hp: Higher of <max for its type> or <ranger proficiency bonus x4>. My question: would the latter option then add Con bonus, or does it override Con mod to hp to just be a flat hp? If it's the latter, you get into some really quirky rules territory - does that mean that changes to the ACo's Con would never affect its hp? Do we now have ACos that are immune to the negative effects of Con drain?

Intorduction (PHB pg7 said:
Specific Beats General
This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3,
that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial
traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster
abilities, and other game elements break the general
rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest
of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule
contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.

In this case, the Mounted Combat rules are general and the Beastmaster Ranger rules are specific - so, the Beastmaster Ranger rules will override what the Mounted Combat rules say.

Or to put it another way, RAW you get to control your ACo mount during combat without losing any actions that the ACo rules don't require.

(SbG is an important point in the 5e rules, I think - it's very clear, right at the beginning and it handles a lot of the load of layered mechanics in the system)

Snapdragyn · Aug 29, 2014

Saelorn said:
It seems perfectly normal to me that a wolf is unable to bite while a gnome is riding it. The movement required to attack is just not conducive to carrying a rider who is also potentially attacking (or casting a spell).

This would set an incredibly clear line for what is controlled or uncontrolled - i.e. a mount bearing a rider is controlled, and anything not bearing a rider is uncontrolled. The only grey space there is when you're off of the mount, but still leading it, which isn't something that comes up terribly often in combat.

And by that interpretation, a warhorse is useless - it can never attack. Unless you think warhorses are meant to be thrown out into the battlefield riderless? 'Unleash the dogs... er, horses of war!'

ccooke said:
In this case, the Mounted Combat rules are general and the Beastmaster Ranger rules are specific - so, the Beastmaster Ranger rules will override what the Mounted Combat rules say.

Or to put it another way, RAW you get to control your ACo mount during combat without losing any actions that the ACo rules don't require.

(SbG is an important point in the 5e rules, I think - it's very clear, right at the beginning and it handles a lot of the load of layered mechanics in the system)

Excellent point. I do hope my DM will agree on which is the general & which the specific (I would certainly think a line of explanation of an ability of a subclass of a single class would be more specific than 'mounted combat', but I've a bad feeling someone could argue it the other way).

Edit: And thinking it over, I do think this means that the Mounted Combat feat could not apply to this build - can't gain the benefits of training to better control a mount if you aren't actually going to control the mount.

Edit 2: Conclusion of previous edit retracted. See post #7.

The Crimson Binome · Aug 29, 2014

Snapdragyn said:
And by that interpretation, a warhorse is useless - it can never attack. Unless you think warhorses are meant to be thrown out into the battlefield riderless? 'Unleash the dogs... er, horses of war!'

A warhorse will still bear a rider into combat and not flee when the artillery goes off, which is more than can be said for most horses.

Snapdragyn said:
Edit: And thinking it over, I do think this means that the Mounted Combat feat could not apply to this build - can't gain the benefits of training to better control a mount if you aren't actually going to control the mount.

I don't have the book at hand, but it seems like there might be something in the Mounted Combat feat that would allow your mount to attack while you're controlling it. Certainly, if I was designing the game, that's where I'd put it.

Snapdragyn · Aug 29, 2014

Saelorn said:
A warhorse will steal bear a rider into combat and not flee when the artillery goes off, which is more than can be said for most horses.

I don't have the book at hand, but it seems like there might be something in the Mounted Combat feat that would allow your mount to attack while you're controlling it. Certainly, if I was designing the game, that's where I'd put it.

I haven't played in a D&D campaign with artillery, but YMMV. That point aside, warhorses are clearly trained for attacking in battle - they get a higher attack bonus for more damage vs. a riding horse, & have a special attack (trampling) which the riding horse lacks. Again, very odd to train them to be attack creatures when they cannot attack when being ridden.

And no, Mounted Combat doesn't have anything about allowing your mount to attack while controlled. It's more about protecting the mount, mainly, & a bit about fighting better (advantage vs. foes smaller than the mount - not really useful for a build with a Medium mount).

In fact, reading it over, it doesn't even require you to control the mount to gain the benefits - it simply states you must be mounted & not incapacitated, that's it. Having read that, I have to retract my previous conclusion about the allowability of the feat for ACo-riding rangers (though the relative value of the feat is another matter).

Juriel · Aug 30, 2014

You could let your mount act independently while you're on its back, but... the Ranger animal companion is made of suck - since it cannot do anything without you holding its hand, it also would not do anything when acting independently.

The Crimson Binome · Aug 30, 2014

Snapdragyn said:
I haven't played in a D&D campaign with artillery, but YMMV. That point aside, warhorses are clearly trained for attacking in battle - they get a higher attack bonus for more damage vs. a riding horse, & have a special attack (trampling) which the riding horse lacks. Again, very odd to train them to be attack creatures when they cannot attack when being ridden.

Artillery = Fireball. Most animals will flee as quickly as possible when there are Fireballs going off.

Reading over the rules for mounted combat, it certainly seems like it pays to have a mount that shares your goal and acts independently, rather than one which does your bidding. I guess the problem with the Ranger's friend is that it's tame, and so you can't not control it. It never acts independently. Which is weird, sure, but that's the trade-off for it having Hit Points and scaling with you.

As a DM, I would certainly never allow the orc warchief's mount to gain its independent attack while it's carrying her around the battlefield. Uncontrolled means you have absolutely zero say over where it goes or what it does.

Snapdragyn · Aug 30, 2014

Saelorn said:
Artillery = Fireball. Most animals will flee as quickly as possible when there are Fireballs going off.

Reading over the rules for mounted combat, it certainly seems like it pays to have a mount that shares your goal and acts independently, rather than one which does your bidding. I guess the problem with the Ranger's friend is that it's tame, and so you can't not control it. It never acts independently. Which is weird, sure, but that's the trade-off for it having Hit Points and scaling with you.

As a DM, I would certainly never allow the orc warchief's mount to gain its independent attack while it's carrying her around the battlefield. Uncontrolled means you have absolutely zero say over where it goes or what it does.

So a character riding a dragon who says 'Hey, let's go attack THAT guy' has now either a) denied the dragon its attack if the dragon does as he suggests, or b) been granted the ability to deny courses of action to the dragon by suggesting them.

The more situations that come up with this, the screwier it gets if any and every element of control equates to a mount unable to attack. Heck, what if my high level wizard wants to Polymorph the fighter and ride him into combat? Better not discuss strategy beforehand, or the polymorphed fighter won't be able to attack because CONTROL!

I do think the answer upthread is the best one here - Specific before General. The specific rules that the ranger can direct his ACo's movement with free verbal commands and sacrifice an attack to allow it to attack overrides the general that a mount can't attack if being controlled.

For dragons & polymorphed fighters, I'd say follow logic - the verbal suggestions/strategizing of the ally does not control the actions of the intelligent mount, but the mount can certainly choose to follow them (or not).