D&D 5E Mounted Combat

[MiraMels]

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.

A warhorse is just a horse that has been trained to follow your orders under stress, and not panic at the sight of blood or the sounds of battle. It's not trained to like, discern friend from foe, and kick monsters at your command. If you dismount, they'll try to stick around, and defend themselves if they can't run away, but like, your best bet for keeping your warhorse in the fight is to stay on the horse.

Mastiffs are in there because Small PCs exist, but if they aren't serving as mounts, I'd expect them to be able to serve as watchdogs (as in, make noise when they see someone they don't recognize, and attempt to threaten and waylay them), or help you track down and flush out game (but not actually kill them, that's your job as a hunter), or maybe you can get a group of them together, point them at a bunch of men across a battlefield, and set them loose. But they are severely limited in the kinds of creatures and situations where they'd be willing and able to fight. You can't expect an uncontrolled mastiff to do anything but run from a hippogriff, or a flameskull, or a hill giant. There are foes and situations that are simply above their training and capabilities.

(An important thing to note, here, is that the Chapter 5 mounts are under the DM's control whenever you are not sitting on them. The player is not moving the creature or declaring actions on their behalf. You can issue commands to them, within their training and capabilities, but even that might require a Wisdom (animal handling) check. And, besides, giving a command of that nature in combat would be an Improvised Action; it would use your character's action to verbally command your mastiff to attack, just like the Beast Master.)

But if you want a canine companion who is capable and steadfast in the face of any danger, who is loyal enough to follow you into any of the Nine Hells, and is exceptional enough to be a damage-dealing combatant, no matter the foe? That's the Beast Master's animal companion. (or it's supposed to be anyway. Your mileage will vary, and you've made your opinion of the beast master clear. If you are disappointed with that offering, then I'd invite you to modify it as you see fit, until you are satisfied that it can fulfill its intended role. The Chapter 5 mounts are not intended to serve as damage-dealing combatants.)

As for the paladin, I am quite confident that the intention of the spell was to grant you an exceptional mount. One that remains under your command even when you are not sitting astride it. It makes sense that the Paladin would be the best class at mounted combat but I cannot imagine that a second level spell of theirs was ever intended to replicate an entire subclass. (Yes, even if the Beast Master's Companion will eventually be better.)

 

[AnimeSniper]

Heralding back to my 3.5e days whenever we had mounted combat the players controlled the direction of our mounts. Only when we were dismounted did the animal follow one of two actions it stayed close by or we directed it away from the combat zone.

@MiraMels I agree with your post as animals and mounts trained for a particular role or combat would do as they are trained... at the Dm's control for NPC's animals i.e. the Mastiffs at the south gate for smuggling checks and the PC control for the trained hunting dog the ranger has as a companion.

 

[Saeviomagy]

An important thing to note, here, is that the Chapter 5 mounts are under the DM's control whenever you are not sitting on them.

But if you want a canine companion who is capable and steadfast in the face of any danger, who is loyal enough to follow you into any of the Nine Hells, and is exceptional enough to be a damage-dealing combatant, no matter the foe?

I agree totally with this - if you give a mount it's head, you're asking the DM to take control. However I would expect that if I charge a warhorse into a fight and then give it it's head, it's going to keep kicking anything that comes near it. If I've got a pigging dog, it's going to go after the pig. If I've got a war dog, I should be able to point at a foe and not worry about issuing commands until the foe is done (all with caveats I expect: you probably cannot train an animal to fight a foe unless you know what that foe looks like, so the specifics will come down to whether specific monsters in your campaign are common or rare, and how much they resemble foes you have trained against).

As for the paladin,[/B] I am quite confident that the intention of the spell was to grant you an exceptional mount. One that remains under your command even when you are not sitting astride it. It makes sense that the Paladin would be the best class at mounted combat but I cannot imagine that a second level spell of theirs was ever intended to replicate an entire subclass. (Yes, even if the Beast Master's Companion will eventually be better.)

The beast master's companion is better when you get it, because it's already getting your proficiency bonus added to most of it's stats, plus some benefits of stealthy movement etc. If it wasn't hamstrung by the awful action rules, there wouldn't be a problem here. And guess what? Those rules are currently being revised. After the revision, this is no longer an issue.

But most importantly of all, the paladin's mount is STILL an NPC. It's an NPC that you can speak to telepathically, and the two of you share an 'instinctive bond', but nowhere is it forced to do what you tell it to, and as an intelligent NPC, it can choose not to be a controlled mount. I would heartily suggest to any DM that their game will be enriched by giving the mount a personality, preferably one chosen to compliment and at times conflict with the paladin who summons it.

 

[beaumontsebos]

Thanks for all the responses and help. Here's what I told my group as the solution...

* If the mount is unintelligent and/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 complement of turns (including their own move - which would be a dismount probably).
* If the mount is intelligent and/or not under the rider's control, the mount can do whatever it wants on its own turn. For intelligent creatures, I take this to mean that the mount can either choose to follow the rider's wishes, or not.
* A steed summoned for Find Steed is a special case. It is intelligent but specifically under the rider’s control. According to WotC, this means it falls under the rules for a controlled mount. If not ridden, it has normal action options and will obey its master within reason. I am going to limit it to CR ½ creatures and lower. Here’s a list, but there could be others: Axe Beak, Camel, Draft Horse, Elk, Giant Bat (only flying steed here), Giant Goat, Giant Lizard, Giant Sea Horse, Riding Horse, Warhorse, Warhorse Skeleton, Worg. At higher levels, I will allow more advanced steeds: Level 9: (CR 1), Level 13: (CR 2), Level 17: (CR 3)

 

[Saeviomagy]

Axe Beak, Camel, Draft Horse, Elk, Giant Bat (only flying steed here), Giant Goat, Giant Lizard, Giant Sea Horse, Riding Horse, Warhorse, Warhorse Skeleton, Worg. At higher levels, I will allow more advanced steeds: Level 9: (CR 1), Level 13: (CR 2), Level 17: (CR 3)

I'd expect most players to go for owls and bats in that case.

Also take note of crocodiles (like a warhorse, but can restrain your enemies) and gas spores, which you wouldn't ride, but the ability to float them into a dungeon ahead of you could make some serious mess.

I would suggest NOT framing the available mounts in terms of CR, and instead pick specific ones that are available to an individual paladin. Handing out flying or sustained restraining is probably a little too good, and allowing someone to summon sentient cruise missiles is probably out of the scope of the spell.

 

[beaumontsebos]

I would suggest NOT framing the available mounts in terms of CR, and instead pick specific ones that are available to an individual paladin. Handing out flying or sustained restraining is probably a little too good, and allowing someone to summon sentient cruise missiles is probably out of the scope of the spell.

I think I'll add in "per DM's discretion" as a firewall against sentient cruise missiles. : )

 

[beaumontsebos]

Uhhhhh.... so does this mean a mount can be ridden and not under the rider's control?

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/11/01...anion-if-i-am-riding-him-can-he-still-attack/