D&D 5E Why does mounted combat feel underwhelming in 5e?

[Fauchard1520]

When it comes to the cavaliers, mounted paladins, and equestrian fighters of 3.X, it’s all about that sweet, sweet charge. Anyone that’s ever done the simple math of lance + spirited charge = Eomer face knows just how amazing it can feel. The business end of a lance is the tactical nuke of the battlefield, resulting in chunky salsa whenever it strikes home.

5e, on the other hand, seems to reduce "mounted combatant" to "battle taxi." I suspect I'm missing something.

So here's my question: What is the most interesting thing you can do with mounted combat in the current edition of the world's most popular roleplaying game? I suspect that I'm missing some kind of secret strat that makes it better than "move a little extra."

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

 

[ECMO3]

Mounted combat in 5E can be OP if you do it right and your mount doesn't die. The ability to have the mount dash and or disengage every turn gives you unmatched mobility and that is extremely powerful if you play tactically to take advantage of it.

Additionally RAW you can play a lot of games with dismounting and mounting which moves the mounts initiative from yours to its own and gives them multiple turns in a round. Some would say this is cheesy, but it is no more cheesy than an OP charge ability IMO.

If you just close with everything and swing a stick at it and then stand there next to it then having a mount is much less impressive.

 

[RangerWickett]

Historically, the first advantage of cavalry simply was the ability to choose whether to engage infantry, and to go around foot soldiers. They would seldom be forced into a fight they did not expect to win. This is not something that really comes up during tactical combat on a 5-ft. grid.

Add the invention of stirrups and compound bows, and now you can kill your opponents from range and then withdraw before their arrows can hit you back. Again, most D&D battle maps are too small for these tactics. I did, however, run a mounted archer ranger back in 3.5 in Red Hand of Doom, to great effect - though a lot of that was not due to me being able to attack from range, but simply because 3.5 was ridiculous, and the rules let my horse kick/kick/bite, then 5-ft. step back out of melee so I could go arrow/arrow/rapidshotarrow, and I could still make opportunity attacks with my spiked gauntlet.

(Yes, the famed ability of a mounted warrior with a pointy glove to wallop anyone who might pass by them!)

The mounted lancer ought to be threatening, and in 5e you might actually have enough movement to ride in, stab from reach, then ride away without provoking an opportunity attack. And in a world of 'realistic' people who are no higher than 3rd level, a single hit from a lance would often be fatal. The design of 5e causes higher level combat to be a death by a half-dozen cuts instead of rocket tag. Which is more balanced for gameplay purposes, and which offers more counterplay, but which removes the occasional fun of pwning a mofo.

I think it is important for GMs to include a variety of foes, including low-level ones, even at high level, so the players can still experience the joy of wiping out mooks. Ten CR 1/4 warriors can pose a threat even at 10th level, thanks to bounded accuracy.

Or we could give high level fighters abilities that are flavored as "your attack deals +20 damage because it's actually your posse of 20 guys swarming whoever you attacked." Then you just have the fields of Agincourt every session.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not really sure you're missing anything. 5e is intentionally reductive on a number of levels. Mounted combat has almost always been one of the thornier problems for editions of D&D to solve (since mounts are usually not a great fit for many places that D&D adventurers go.) Combine the two together, and you get a perfect recipe for perfunctory rules, support in name only.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Nope, don't think you're missing anything.

DnD combat, especially 5e, is very very boring.

 

[JoeyD473]

Nope, don't think you're missing anything.

DnD combat, especially 5e, is very very boring.

I agree that mounted combat is overall very boring in 5e combat in 5e doesn't have to be boring. It depends on players and DMs. If they use the same tactics over and over again then yes it is boring. But sometimes you have clever players/DMs and combat can be interesting again. This is true of all editions

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Regular mounts in 5e die way too easily to AoE damage effects. A warhorse and barding is just a waste of money, unless you have a class feature that gives you a mount or mountable companion there's no point in riding into combat.

 

[Umbran]

When it comes to the cavaliers, mounted paladins, and equestrian fighters of 3.X, it’s all about that sweet, sweet charge. Anyone that’s ever done the simple math of lance + spirited charge = Eomer face knows just how amazing it can feel. The business end of a lance is the tactical nuke of the battlefield, resulting in chunky salsa whenever it strikes home.

5e, on the other hand, seems to reduce "mounted combatant" to "battle taxi." I suspect I'm missing something.

One thing that is missing is that D&D is built primarily a around small squad-level tactics, but the mounted charge is more of a large battlefield formation tactic. One horse riding at you with a pointy stick isn't so scary. A wall of horses tens of yards wide is another matter entirely.

 

[Aldarc]

Why does mounted combat feel underwhelming in 5e?​

I think that the answer is also in the name of the game: (1) Dungeons and (2) Dragons.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Mounted combat has a lot of problems in D&D. Nearly all of them have to do with the simple fact that horses don't belong in dungeons. They're so limited compared to a humanoid. Mounts don't like narrow passageways. They can't climb ladders. They can't use spiral staircases. God help you if you need to travel the planes. If they fall into a pit trap, they're 1,000 lbs of dead weight stuck at the bottom of a pit. Their high movement rate is often totally irrelevant indoors, too, and you'll be bottlenecked by doorways and rooms. A mounted knight doesn't exactly fit through a doorway. Even outdoors, their tactics don't really provide any benefit at all if the creature can fly or has any kind of special movement. They don't like uneven or steep terrain, either. Paladins have it slightly better with Summon Steed... but it's still difficult to make work and Summon Steed isn't quite the Pokeball it really needs to be like Find Familiar. So you can focus on mounted combat, but there's a significant risk that you're just going to have all this investment into stuff you can't use.

It's a lot better for small characters if they're riding a more agile animal like a dog... but One D&D just made lances heavy. So... guess that's that?

I played a Paladin from 1998 to about 2004. Started in 2e AD&D, converted to 3e D&D, and then to 3.5. Went from level 1 to level 15. I never once called my steed. I just never wanted the obligation of a mount to take care of, and there was no benefit to having a mount. We spend 90% of the game in the underdark, lost across the outer planes, lost in untamed wildernesses, or in various urban settings. Our DM was a big fan of Chronicles of Amber. I remember the first dungeon we went to at level 1, the NPC that hired us gave us pack animals for the journey. The party ended up drawn through a portal in that first dungeon. We never saw those pack animals again because we never returned through the cave entrance.

Mounts are too much of a liability.