D&D General What ever happened to the Cavalier?

[bedir than]

I think its defensible that it should apply to wilderness play to some degree.

As to why--because specialized abilities rarely get taken when you have an extremely limited amount of resource to spend on them, unless you know they're going to be used regularly. Which you rarely do.

So you would suggest that Great Weapon Master should have a sentence about how it is used while flying?

 

[Stormonu]

I just fixed mounted combat for my games the other day. I was making the characters for my players, because they are new to 5e, and because I have been enjoying doing it. It got me obsessed with making sure that 1) everything the character can do is spelled-out rules-wise & 2) It all fits on one page (with not-small font!).

With that in mind, I was trying to fit the ranger's horse on (and then the fighter picked up one too, after defeating a villain mounted on a warhorse). So... two characters with horses. So I started with the whole warhorse monster statblock. I was tying to cram it into a corner, when it occurred to me that I could just move stuff to the PC. I left the mount's AC, HP, and Ability Scores in a little box and I moved its speed, charge, and hooves attacks under the PC's options. So it looked like this:

Speed: 30 ft. (Mounted) 60 ft.
Charge. (mounted) If you move at least 20 ft. straight toward a creature & hit them with your horse’s hooves, they must make a dc14 STR save or be knocked prone.

Actions:
Longsword +5 for 1d8+3 slashing damage.
Hooves (mounted) +6 for 2d6+4 bludgeoning damage.

etc.

So now the horses' attacks are just part of the PC's suite of features. And they'll actually use them. They "ready" those features by mounting their horse, the same way you ready your sword by drawing it.

This is a good start - I could then see an "Unmounted" condition and you don't really have to track the mount's HP. Enemies would just have to do a special attack - like shove, trip, grapple or whatnot - to unmount a PC.

If you still wanted to account for the ability to attack the mount, perhaps require the PC be unmounted first to do so. And somehow make it unappealing to directing attacks at the PCs/NPC riders, except in cases where the mount's exceptional - like a dragon or somesuch.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Some times I thought I imagined the D&D knight as spell-breaker knight, and with some special legacy item, a weapon or armour, what gives special gifts. It would be like those superheroes who are linked with some special artifact.

Other option could be the mount to be polymorphed into a monster ally, enough small to explore dungeons.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This isn't the expectation for wilderness play, or aerial play, or underwater play. Why would it be the expectation for mounted or on-the-seas play?

I won't speak on wilderness (because standard land combat is relatively the same regardless of the location)... but I would say the same would need to apply to aerial and underwater play just like it does for Mounted or Sea-based as well. The only difference with those is that the game doesn't tend to include features (like Feats) available to PCs that specifically are meant to make aerial and underwater combat better. If the game DID include an 'Aerial Combat' feat or an 'Underwater Combat' feat like it does a 'Mounted Combat' feat, I would say the same applies-- it is using their Feat system to try and boost a character in a way that does not help the PC except in the most extreme of circumstances.

Let's look at the Mounted Combat feat in 5E:

• You have advantage on melee attack rolls against any unmounted creature that is smaller than your mount.
• You can force an attack targeted at your mount to target you instead.
• If your mount is subjected to an effect that allows it to make Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, it instead takes no damage if it succeeds on the saving throw, and only half damage if it fails.

So two effects that keep your mount alive, and only one effect that actually helps the PC-- Advantage on a roll. Which is an effect that PCs can already acquire in the game seven ways to Sunday. So what does this character really gain for using one of its Feat slots for it? Very little I would say-- especially when the character will only find themselves on a mount in like a quarter to half of their combats? The feat just is a poor use of resources. And if there was a feat that gave similar effects to Aerial or Underwater combat? The return-on-investment would be even worse.

Now that being said... if there was a defensive feat a PC could take that made them better defensively AND could re-direct damage from a mount to the PC (if and when they found themselves on one)... THEN we might have something that was worth using a feat slot for. Because it would always have worth in some form or fashion and even better worth when on a mount. At that point it could be justified to take them and have them be worthwhile.

 

[J-H]

There's another reality - map size. A warhorse has double the movement rate of a typical character on foot. If you scale the map for characters on foot, the horse just becomes a "go anywhere on the map" tool. If you scale the map for mounted characters, anyone unhorsed may well be just out of the fight.

Pointing out that horses drastically improve strategic and tactical mobility is... well, historically accurate.

It makes me want to make them more useful.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Now if Feat slots were like Spell slots in that you could have more Feats in your knowledge-bank than your number of available Feats slots at your level, and could swap out Feats on a daily basis (so you could figure out what you probably would be doing for the day and could plug in the feats that would be the most useful to you)... at that point, sure, select and have Mounted Combat as an option in your back pocket. That way if/when you ever find yourself in a situation where you are going to need it... you can "unprepare" your Actor feat for the day (for example) and "prepare" Mounted Combat instead (using admittedly completely wrong terminology for what the system is asking of us to do, LOL).

It would feel weird to players I have no doubt... the concept of just "forgetting" how to do something that came from a feat... but it's the only way to make less useful Feat options worth taking. The Wizard has the ability to have Water Walking in their spellbook and can prepare it for the day that the party finds themselves on a boat at absolutely no cost to themselves... the other non-casters probably could do with a similar thing.

 

[Andvari]

Maybe the class could have some minor bonuses for mounted combat, but mostly focus on general combat that works both on or off the mount, code of conduct and other knightly things. That way it's not a big deal when you have to leave the horse outside the dungeon. Eric didn't even have or mount. The barbarian did.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Or the knight could be created to be used with a secon PC, the monster, even one player could use knight and monster simultanealy because both share a telepatic link.

It would be interesting, a gnome knight riding a talking sentient pony, and this could "digievolution" using the "humanoid shape", the reverse of druid's wild-shape.

Or a knight whose mountain would be a centaur or other like this.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

This is a good start - I could then see an "Unmounted" condition and you don't really have to track the mount's HP. Enemies would just have to do a special attack - like shove, trip, grapple or whatnot - to unmount a PC.

If you still wanted to account for the ability to attack the mount, perhaps require the PC be unmounted first to do so. And somehow make it unappealing to directing attacks at the PCs/NPC riders, except in cases where the mount's exceptional - like a dragon or somesuch.

Good thoughts. But I didn't see a need for an "unmounted" condition, in that you're always unmounted unless you are mounted (or in other words, you have all your regular abilities, and only when you are mounted do you get access to your mounted abilities. So no need for the reverse).

As far as attacking the mount goes, well, I generally just play my bad guys as greedy, and mounts would be part of the treasure they'd get if they defeat the PCs, so they leave 'em alone. (This won't be true for hungry monsters or undead, naturally). Even giants might want them alive so they don't have to carry them, even if they want to eat them. "Save 'em for later, Guggaw! Git dat small guy on top!"

 

[Bill Zebub]

Horses in D&D are given stats that make them sensible mounts for the general populace and fairly mundane armies. So a warhorse is a CR 1/2 creature, and they will die whenever something to challenge higher level characters show up. Less a stereotype and more a statistical reality.

There's another reality - map size. A warhorse has double the movement rate of a typical character on foot. If you scale the map for characters on foot, the horse just becomes a "go anywhere on the map" tool. If you scale the map for mounted characters, anyone unhorsed may well be just out of the fight.

Yeah, zero-to-hero mechanics don't really work well with fixed stat mounts.