D&D 5E (2014) Mounted Combat

[beaumontsebos]

So, my players are started to get some cool mounts and the mounted combat rules have me confused a little.

Let me know if I got this straight:

If the mount is unintelligent or under the rider's control, the mount can only take dash/disengage/dodge on the rider's turn. The rider still has his/her full compliment of turns (including their own move - which would be a dismount probably).

If the mount is intelligent or not under the rider's control, the mount can do whatever it wants on it's own turn. For intelligent creatures, I take this to mean that the mount can either choose to follow the rider's wishes, or not.

Right?

So, if a PC used Find Steed, that is an intelligent creature and do whatever it wanted on it's own turn, then (which would most likely be what the rider would want because of their special relationship).

I also remember seeing somewhere that in a case where a monster has a mount, that the monster and mount act on their own turns. I forget where I saw that. Can anybody confirm?

Thanks in advance for any replies.

 

[Saeviomagy]

So, my players are started to get some cool mounts and the mounted combat rules have me confused a little.

Let me know if I got this straight:

If the mount is unintelligent or under the rider's control, the mount can only take dash/disengage/dodge on the rider's turn. The rider still has his/her full compliment of turns (including their own move - which would be a dismount probably).

If the mount is intelligent or not under the rider's control, the mount can do whatever it wants on it's own turn. For intelligent creatures, I take this to mean that the mount can either choose to follow the rider's wishes, or not.

Right?

So, if a PC used Find Steed, that is an intelligent creature and do whatever it wanted on it's own turn, then (which would most likely be what the rider would want because of their special relationship).

This makes sense if you read what the rules say, and also makes sense from a normal point of view.

However Jeremy Crawford has some bizarre view of the world that says that the intelligent, loyal and obedient paladin's mount is somehow never, ever, ever an uncontrolled mount. Why? Who the heck knows?

Also you'll tend to hear a hue and cry that allowing a paladin to have an intelligent independent mount should be against the rules, on the grounds that the beastmaster ranger sucks. He does, but that's no reason to make everyone else suck.

I also remember seeing somewhere that in a case where a monster has a mount, that the monster and mount act on their own turns. I forget where I saw that. Can anybody confirm?

As far as I can see, mounted monsters follow the same rules as mounted PCs: they can control or not control the mount with all that entails. As a DM, I would consider it my duty to not 'cheat' on that account: monsters and uncontrolled mounts should roll their initiative separately and uncontrolled mounts should act appropriately for whatever they are.

 

[Prakriti]

If the mount is unintelligent or under the rider's control, the mount can only take dash/disengage/dodge on the rider's turn. The rider still has his/her full compliment of turns (including their own move - which would be a dismount probably).

Here's how I understand it. The mount's initiative changes to match the rider's, and the mount "moves as you [the rider] direct it." It's easier just to say... "When you're on a warhorse, you have 60 feet of movement."

If you want to get persnickety, since the mount and the rider still technically have separate turns, then don't allow the rider to break up movement between attacks. The mount has to take its turn (i.e. move), then the rider can attack (or vice versa). No move, attack, move, attack.

 

[jaelis]

However Jeremy Crawford has some bizarre view of the world that says that the intelligent, loyal and obedient paladin's mount is somehow never, ever, ever an uncontrolled mount. Why? Who the heck knows?

For reference, here's the tweet being referenced.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/18...t-as-intelligent-creature-for-mounted-combat/

My take is just that JC is giving us the intent of the spell, not trying to imply that it follows from the rules somehow. If you don't care about the intent then you can ignore it.

Also you'll tend to hear a hue and cry that allowing a paladin to have an intelligent independent mount should be against the rules, on the grounds that the beastmaster ranger sucks. He does, but that's no reason to make everyone else suck.

And I don't know that you're fairly characterizing here the position that agrees with JC. Forget the beastmaster, it's still reasonable to ask whether a looser interpretation makes the mount too powerful for a second level spell.

But it has indeed been discussed a lot, best advice is to rule as seems best for your table.

 

[beaumontsebos]

For reference, here's the tweet being referenced.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/18...t-as-intelligent-creature-for-mounted-combat/

This helps. I thought Find Steed was too powerful for my tastes at this level. Thanks

 

[Saeviomagy]

For reference, here's the tweet being referenced.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/18...t-as-intelligent-creature-for-mounted-combat/

My take is just that JC is giving us the intent of the spell, not trying to imply that it follows from the rules somehow. If you don't care about the intent then you can ignore it.

My take is that he put little thought into the tweet, and may even not have looked at the spell before he replied. It's impossible to tell which, because he didn't say why he made the ruling he did. The fact that there's been no subsequent clarification of the spell, despite his answer deviating so far from the text suggests that it's not considered important enough to clarify properly.

And I don't know that you're fairly characterizing here the position that agrees with JC. Forget the beastmaster, it's still reasonable to ask whether a looser interpretation makes the mount too powerful for a second level spell.

No, I'm quoting one of the reasons that I've been told for why the spell is too powerful: because it's better than the beastmaster. The fact that anybody who buys an animal can get it's attacks for free seems to be lost.

Also it's not quite as simple as a 'second level spell'. It's a second level spell that is exclusive to a class that doesn't get it until 5th level (and I don't think there is any way at all to reduce that via shenanigans).

And the benefits it gives are not much beyond simply buying a warhorse. Maybe an issue for DMs who's players are still trudging around on foot by 5th level, but I'm not seeing it.

 

[MiraMels]

I recently had a player hit Paladin 5. She and I spent a few days trying to figure out how exactly this spell was supposed to work, and JC's tweets just made the spell more ambiguous.

That said, we got to a ruling that feels good to both of us. Here's how I'm running the steed:

The steed is considered to be a controlled mount (that is, controlled by the Paladin's player; acts on Paladin's turn; has it's own action that can be used to Dash, Disengage, and Dodge only) as long as the Paladin is conscious and the mount is within 1 mile of the Paladin. (The range of the spells' telepathic link.) If the steed is further than 1 mile from the Paladin, or the Paladin is unconscious, then the steed is under control of the DM and it can use its actions freely. The steed will defend itself, defend its Paladin, or follow whatever orders it was given by the Paladin to the best of its ability.

 

[MiraMels]

The fact that anybody who buys an animal can get it's attacks for free seems to be lost.

I don't think that is how the purchasable animals in the Player's Handbook equipment section are supposed to work. Could you explain how you came to that ruling?

 

[Saeviomagy]

I don't think that is how the purchasable animals in the Player's Handbook equipment section are supposed to work. Could you explain how you came to that ruling?

If you buy a warhorse or a hunting dog, then I would expect that they're going to be capable of combat, and if you give them their head, they will do more than run off.

Will they be perfect tactical companions? No. But they're going to attack, and it won't cost you an action to make them do so.

The paladin summoned warhorse is a step up from that - it's loyal, obedient, extra intelligent, share spells with you and are telepathically linked to you. So why would it they be incapable of independent action? Again there are disadvantages compared with the beastmaster: namely that they have fixed hit points, defenses and attacks that will rapidly become outclassed.

 

[Lehrbuch]

If you buy a warhorse or a hunting dog, then I would expect that they're going to be capable of combat, and if you give them their head, they will do more than run off.

Yes, a warhorse, or whatever, should act however a trained animal of that type does.

For that purpose, it shouldn't matter whether it was acquired via Summon Steed, or was purchased in the horse-market, or was rustled, or was rescued from a giant's larder.