D&D 5E Attacking with a warhorse

[Saeviomagy]

Either

You can choose to control the mount
- it acts on your init
- it can take dash, disengage or dodge actions only
- it moves and acts as you direct, which does not take an action on your part

This means that you can (for instance) move the full movement complement of your horse through opponents (ie - disengaging) while taking a full attack.

OR

You can choose not to control the mount
- it acts on it's own initiative
- it can take any action
- it does what the heck it feels like. For a normal riding horse and a bloodthirsty warrior, I expect this is usually not to the rider's benefit in combat. Out of combat? Guiding a horse with your knees is pretty elementary, so it's going to go where you want with some reasonable vetos from the DM. For a warhorse, it's going to go where you want and trample whoever you direct it to walk through, and directing it won't typically take an action. Again there will be some reasonable vetos, and you won't be able to attack mid-movement.

In short - going up against a warbeast-mounted opponent when you are unmounted is pretty nasty: he's going to run rings around you and then his horse will step on your face while he stabs you.

The find steed mount is a different beast again, because it has a high enough intelligence that it can understand what you say to it, and "you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit" and you can communicate with it telepathically. I'd say that executing complex tactics becomes pretty easy. Things like having IT ready an action so you can get your full attack while it moves, dismounting, fighting and remounting, responding to orders from across the battlefield etc. It's also not likely to balk at much, because it can't die.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Oh, and you can switch between controlled and uncontrolled whenever you want for no action.

Assuming the DM doesn't just let you do this, you can dismount for half your speed at the end of one round, then remount for half your speed at the start of the next, but it would seem wierd to me to force a player to do this.

 

[Erik42]

In general, I've always ruled that a warhorse is exceptional because it does not panic if ridden into a battle, will not bolt, and is able to perform standard combat maneuvers. A riding horse (or any non-warhorse) cannot be used in battle at all as it will panic. Part of a warhorse's training is curtailing the instinct to attack. In first edition, with one minute rounds, I could see the mount attacking and the rider being able to attack without penalty in the same round. But in 5E with 6 second rounds, It seems most likely that the rider would get disadvantage on their attack if the horse were to attack by lashing out with a hoof or biting. There is also the chance of the rider being thrown. An exception to this would be a charging attack in which the rider was armed with a lance or spear and the horse was able to trample in the same round as part of the same attack basically.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I'm having trouble visualizing how a mounted fighter and his warhorse are going to attack at the same time. Two modes of attack for the horse seem reasonable, rear and strike with the front hooves, and trample. In the first case, the rider is going to be occupied just holding on, and in the second the horse is moving pretty quick and the rider isn't going to get another shot at that target.

The advantage of mounted combat isn't a second attack, it's the increased efficacy of the rider. To keep things simple, I'd be inclined to use these rules: If the horse is a warhorse and the rider is proficient at mounted combat, then the rider gets advantage in a melee attack against an opponent on foot, double damage if the horse is moving forward, and triple for a lance attack with the horse charging. The rider can use the horse to attack instead, which does normal horse damage and can knock an opponent down. If a rider is mounted on a normal horse, he only gets the advantage vs opponents on foot, and must make an animal handling check each round or the animal will flee.

 

[wedgeski]

Not sure how much damage the horse would do though.

That picture reminds me of the time I DM'd a minotaur PC who grappled a charging horse, picked it up, and threw at its now prone rider, killing him instantly. Many high-fives were exchanged around the table that day.

I ruled the horse survived with only minor PTSD.

 

[Flamestrike]

I ruled the horse survived with only minor PTSD.

I don't know why, but I'm reminded of:

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5jY6EPf5MHQ[/video]

 

[Psikerlord#]

Given you can hire a guy to fight beside you at no action cost, I would also allow a ridden warhorse to attack without an action cost from the rider. Yeah, balance and all that, but how often can you use your warhorse anyway? Not in a dungeon, not in most city adventures, you're basically left with wilderness treks. No biggie.

You have to buy the horse. It doesnt have much HP. If you're roleplaying, you probably become attached to it, want to protect it, etc. It's a cool pet. Similarly if you have a pet warhound or whatever.

At most I would allow a PC to have only a couple of pets. More than that and it's too complicated, the animals probably wouldnt get on anyway, and it would probably be fair to split XP further to account for all the helpers.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'm having trouble visualizing how a mounted fighter and his warhorse are going to attack at the same time. Two modes of attack for the horse seem reasonable, rear and strike with the front hooves, and trample. In the first case, the rider is going to be occupied just holding on, and in the second the horse is moving pretty quick and the rider isn't going to get another shot at that target.

... But if you control the mount you can have it dash, make potentially 9 attacks on a foe, then keep moving. I'm not seeing how having both you and your mount attack while moving half that speed and not having to directly control your mount is a problem.

 

[Bayonet]

I'd house rule it this way. A warhorse is trained for mounted combat, but most PC's aren't. Trained mounts respond to signals and an untrained PC doesn't know the necessary signals and riding skills to direct it effectively.

If the PC has a warhorse (or other mount likely to know how to take part in combat) they can either Attack or control the mount during their turn as per the rules in the PHB.

If the PC has a warhorse AND the Mounted Combatant feat, they can use a bonus action to direct the warhorse to attack once per turn (2d6+4)

Yes, it'll be quite powerful, but keep in mind that;

a) The PC burned a feat for this, letting them do something cool is just going to increase their fun, and fun is the end goal of every session.

b) Realistically, trained warhorses DID dramatically increase the combat effectiveness of trained riders; this is why mounted combat was so important a military skill for so long.

c)In the average campaign, the PC will get VERY few chances to use this feat. They will get to be the MVP of less than a handful of combats at best. It will allow your Fighter to double his damage with a bonus action once every blue moon, whereas your Rogue gets to do that every time he gets a sneak attack. Let them have it, it won't break anything.

 

[Blue]

Unless you let your mount act independently. As an intelligent creature, a paladin's mount always acts independently, and it gets a full set of actions. The paladin might issue commands (free action), either speaking or through reins/knees, and the mount (as a friendly "NPC") is likely to do as it's told.

He doesn't have an option, he MUST let his mount act independently. The Find Steed gives them a 6 Int if it was lower, and under mounted combat it says that Intelligent mounts always act independantly.

Now, it also says they work together seamlessly and can speak telepathically, so I assume that most of the time it will be doing what you want it to do.