D&D 5E Attacking with a warhorse

[wedgeski]

I would allow (and have allowed) a mounted PC to run someone down, but he used his action to do so. Other than that, you want the benefit, you spend the feat.

 

[Aenorgreen]

I would allow (and have allowed) a mounted PC to run someone down, but he used his action to do so. Other than that, you want the benefit, you spend the feat.

I would be fine with that, if the feat actually let one attack with the mount. It does not. It gives advantage on your attacks against smaller creatures, and some defense stuff. Even with the feat your mount cannot attack if controlled. It seems counter to what it seems a mount should do.

 

[Klaus]

Is a mount "intelligent"? It has an INT of 2. Does all it require is that the mount have an INT stat of 1+? I was under the belief that required something higher, but you may be correct. That would make it better but the separate initiative counts brings up a bunch of problems of its own.
Thanks for the answers.

An intelligent mount *always* acts independently. Other mounts may act independently, if the rider allows it. In the latter case, I'd call for an Wis (Animal Handling) check if the rider tries to give the mount a command it is not trained to understand. For instance, I'd let a character give warhorse commands related to fighting (attack, move, disengage) without requiring a check (unless the mount is being commanded to, say, attack a fire elemental, which is something it is not used to).

 

[not-so-newguy]

How about this?

A pc uses his/her bonus action to allow a warhorse to attack.

If you have the mounted combat feat, no need to waste a bonus action. The warhorse makes an attack on its own.

 

[wedgeski]

I would be fine with that, if the feat actually let one attack with the mount. It does not. It gives advantage on your attacks against smaller creatures, and some defense stuff. Even with the feat your mount cannot attack if controlled. It seems counter to what it seems a mount should do.

Why do you feel an unintelligent mount should be able to attack? A horse is rearing with its hooves and chomping down with its teeth?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Why do you feel an unintelligent mount should be able to attack? A horse is rearing with its hooves and chomping down with its teeth?

I'd expect it to have been somewhat trained out of them, so they don't throw the rider. I'd argue they generally wouldnt unless they've been harmed or are panicked. And even then, there's a ton of stuff they wouldn't bite. Zombies, fire elementals, rhymes...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Despite what the rules say, a trained warhorse is fairly useless if it is unable to attack, that is why it is a WAR horse and cost so much more than a riding horse. These horses attacked regularly in AD&D and B/X and nothing was broken. A mounted warrior on a well trained warhorse WAS much more formidable than the same warrior on foot, that's kind of the point of the horse.

I wonder why low-level DPR comparisons never feature a Mounted Combatant on a warhorse. Adding a full extra 2d4 + 3 attack, plus advantage on your own attacks per round, is actually pretty awesome. And the fact that Mounted Combatant lets you force opponents to target you instead of the horse (even with missile weapons) obviates the worst vulnerability of the horse. Horses also go really well with missile weapon kiting. You could be an fighter doing 10 points of damage per turn as a horse archer and 40 points of damage (with advantage) in melee, by level 5. And that's an iconic fighter trope: cataphracts with heavy armor and powerful cataphract bows.

Yeah, large mounts as a hassle, but since conventional wisdom says that 5E drow are "lame" because of Sunlight disadvantage, that implies that you're often fighting in the open field where sunlight is an issue, so mounts should be available, yes? There are few battlefields where drow are lame and so is Mounted Combatant. Shipboard combat, maybe, since horses don't have good sealegs.

 

[Aenorgreen]

Why do you feel an unintelligent mount should be able to attack? A horse is rearing with its hooves and chomping down with its teeth?

That is what I pictured and have heard in stories, yes. Trampling also. What is strange about thinking a horse with a rider might attack those around it?

 

[wedgeski]

That is what I pictured and have heard in stories, yes. Trampling also. What is strange about thinking a horse with a rider might attack those around it?

I guess we're just working from different references. Trampling, for sure, and I've allowed it, although always at the expense of the rider's action. Anything more than that just looks odd in my mind's eye, with a mundane mount at least. Now, a dragon, or a gryffon, or something fantastic, that's a different thing altogether, and the rules allow for it. Anyway, different strokes etc.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I guess we're just working from different references. Trampling, for sure, and I've allowed it, although always at the expense of the rider's action. Anything more than that just looks odd in my mind's eye, with a mundane mount at least. Now, a dragon, or a gryffon, or something fantastic, that's a different thing altogether, and the rules allow for it. Anyway, different strokes etc.

For me it depends on the circumstances. If a mid to high level fighter was riding his charger into a small horde (say 12-20) of orcs and they all pressed around him trying to kill the fighter then I would be fine with the horse trampling an orc while the fighter slashes with his sword left and right at different targets.

If that fighter were bearing down on a lone opponent on foot then it would be more of an either/or scenario. Either the fighter guides his horse to the flank in order to get a swing at his foe or he has the horse just try and run him over. The exception to this is the lance. A long lance would allow the rider to target the footman at speed and THEN still run him down if the lance missed or the foe was still standing.

This is one of those cases where the circumstances of the situation are everything.