D&D 5E Mounted Combat Questions

[lkwpeter]

Hey,

yesterday we had a situation, on that we had to fight while mounted on "normal" travel horses. We came to a discussion concerning the following points.


1.) The rider's actions require no ability checks for riding:

Problem: Some of our group took the view that taking actions while mounted would/should require special ability checks. E.g. using an object or attacking would require a DC X check to succeed, because it seems harder to succeed on these actions while riding at the same time.

My interpretation: For dependend mounts (like travel horses are) PHB 198 states that you can direct it. Directing a mounts costs no action (otherwise the rules would say so). The mount can use its own action to Dash, Dodge, Disengage. So the rider still has all his actions left to use. There are no rules about restrictions on the rider's actions. Furthermore there are several situations on that you have to succeed a DC10 check to not fall off your mount (I don't want to go into that). But nothing says the rider needs to succeed a check for a normal attack, drinking a potion, grabbing a rope, etc. Again: There are no restrictions, except maybe for risky maneuvers that do not guarantee success (like everything else that would require a normal ability check). So in my opinion you do not need to make riding checks, unless you do some extra ordinary maneuvers or the rules explicitly say so. You can cast, use objects and attack (even with 2 handed weapons).

Is this correct?



2.) Type of horse / horses actions:

Problem: We were kind of unsure which type of mount a "normal travel horse" is. The MM 336 includes a "Riding Horse" that seems to fit perfectly for our usage. But the description says it has a special action called "Hooves" (special attack), although mounts can only Dash, Dodge or Disengage while directed.

My interpretation: The horse can only use its "Hooves" action while not being mounted. While directed by a rider its actions are restricted to Dash, Dodge, Disengage. So the riding horse seems to be the "correct" horse, unless you ride a war horse. This has nothing to do with it's "Hooves" action. Correct?



3.) Mount fleeing from combat:

Problem: So if the Riding Horse is the correct horse we somehow end up with the starting question again: Does a "domesctic" riding horse have to make special ability checks while directed(!!) to see, if it's going to panic and flee from combat? Or isn't that a real option in a "normal" fight, unless there is something extra terrifying happening that would require a ordinary WIS-DC (like Fear or other spells)?

My interpretation: No, it does not flee from combat, only because it is not a war horse. Otherwise the rules would say so. So unless the horse doesn't get affected by a spell or condition that let's it run away/flee (like the Fear spell) this is not happening. Concerning this riding horses and war horses follow the same rules, but war horses additionally benefit from specific rules like higher stats and being able to wear armor.



4.) Can War Horses act independendly?

As I have described before (what - of course - may be wrong) directed mounts can only Dash, Dodge, Disengage. The War Horse has a feat called "Trampling Charge" that allows it too shove creature prone after moving 20 feet and attacking. So because I can only direct a horse to dash, dodge and disengage: When would it be able to use this action? Can it act independendly or are there any rules for directing a war horse that I missed?



Okay, so that a lot of writing. I tried to find answers via Google, Sage Advice, Twitter, but unfortunately I wasn't able to find some. So I would be happy about some clarification and I will update this first post and add a summary of all the answers posted to help people in the future.


Thanks in advance!
Peter

 

[Redthistle]

I cannot picture combat on horses that are not trained for it as anything less than chaotic.

As a DM, I would have the PCs make a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check vs. DC 10 in the first round of combat, specifically because a riding horse has not received the training that a war horse has. For a PC that has proficiency in Animal Handling, I would consider giving that PC advantage on this check.

Mount has not taken damage.

If the check succeeds, combat should proceed as normal for that PC unless and until the mount takes damage (see below).

On a failed save, a PC would have disadvantage on attack rolls, but would be able to make another Wisdom (Animal Handling) check vs. DC 10 at the end of each of its turns until succeeding on the check, when disadvantage would end.

Mount takes damage

When an (untrained for combat) mount takes damage and its rider does not currently have disadvantage from failing an earlier check, a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check vs. DC 10 would be required. A success allows the PC to maintain control of the mount and combat proceeds as normal.

If the mount takes damage while the PC has disadvantage, a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check vs. DC 15 is required. If the check succeeds, the PC regains control of the mount and combat should proceed as normal.

On a failed save on a wounded riding horse, the mount will flee, and a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check vs. DC 15 will be required at the end of each turn. Until the rider succeeds on the check, the mount will flee for a number of rounds equal to 1d4 + its Constitution modifier.

If a mount has lost more than half of its hit points, it will be exhausted when it stops fleeing.

Working together

Beginning on the round after a PC has succeeded on the Wisdom (Animal Handling) check, that PC can use its action to assist an adjacent PC who failed the skill check per the rules in the Player's Handbook (p. 175).

 

[Redthistle]

Regarding a horse's Attack (Hooves), these come in two types.

There's a rearing kick with the fore-hooves, a pawing, wind-milling assault that thankfully, I've never had to face.

Depending on circumstances, I might require a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check for a rider when its mount unexpectedly rears. Optional: a PC could instead make either a Strength or Dexterity ability check to simply hang on until the rearing stops.

I have been on the receiving end of a rear-hoof attack once, and the bruise was big.

[A Word to the Wise: familiarize yourself with equine anatomy. You do not want to feed a carrot to the wrong end of a horse.]

Also, not included in the MM, horses do bite (nip). I'd assign 1d2 damage for a successful attack with that.

As to when to use a riding horse's attack, I'm inclined to include it as a reaction (independent from the PC's reaction) triggered by another creature attempting to intrude on the horse's space.

 

[Redthistle]

War Horse Trampling Charge

I would house-rule this as a bonus action usable anytime you've charged the requisite 20-foot distance on an attack.

If the charge travels more than 20 feet, I'd define the targets as any creatures of Large size or smaller in the spaces traveled through during the charge past that initial distance. If a Huge-sized creature is in that line of movement, it would be shoved, not knocked prone.

 

[lkwpeter]

Hey Redthistle! Actually I was talking about RAW. But your suggestions sound very plausible. I will talk about that with our group. Very nice! Thanks!

 

[Redthistle]

You're welcome. I confess, I get carried away sometimes.

 

[discosoc]

1.
Fighting on horseback seems like the very definition of "risky maneuvers that do not guarantee success."

I try and keep it simple. If it's a normal horse, you have to make an Animal Handling check (DC kind of depends on the situation, but I'd start at 15) for every action you make. Failure means you lose the action. Normal horses were simply not trained to stay calm in chaotic situations like combat, so you're fighting to keep them from bolting away a few dozen yards.

Now warhorses are specifically trained for that, so I'd be a bit more lenient there. Combat doesn't freak them out and I'd say just being proficient in the Animal Handling skill is good enough to act normally. If you aren't proficient, then you have to roll against an DC 10 to represent the disconnect between a trained horse being poorly directed by an untrained rider.

2.
You pretty much have this part correct. The MM actions are for when the mount is acting solo.

3.
I'd say most mounts that aren't trained for combat, such as riding horses, are going to flee when fighting breaks out. If you've ever been around horses, you'll notice that this doesn't mean they run away like some turned undead -- they just kind of bolt away a few dozen yards and wait for the chaos to calm down. They may not be trained for combat, but they aren't wild horses looking to go feral at a moment's notice either. What this does is gives value to a "war horse" in that it's capable of being there with you in combat (either as a mount or by attacking solo after you dismount).

4.
Any properly trained animal should be capable of fighting independently (although the ranger beast-master pet is a broken exception). Now, that doesn't mean the mount will follow your direction; it would instead be controlled by the GM unless he just didn't care. I'd personally tie in the effectiveness of your war horse in combat with what kinds of tricks or training you've given it, beyond the normal "defend yourself and don't run away." For example train the war horse to protect the mage when you dismount in combat. Or train it to attack your target if it can. Or train it to stay 10 feet away from you unless you whistle, prompting it to return for you to mount it or retrieve an item or something. Those kinds of things.

 

[lkwpeter]

Thanks for your answer, discosoc! To be honest I like staying close to the RAW, because houseruling can quickly break the game. I think that if you call for a skill check whenever a you want to take an action while riding that is just one of those "game breaking house ruling". Because if the RAW would intend to make fighting with horses others than war horses so difficult, I guess they would have simply said so. I believe it's reasonable to call for checks like Redthistle has described (e.g. at the beginning of the first round and additionally when the horse takes damage). Also consider that war horses have more advantages than just the training. The can wear armor and have more HP.

 

[discosoc]

Thing is, I'm not really house ruling anything with my comment*. I'm using the Handle Animal skill pretty much as written, IMO. Mounted combat with a horse not trained for combat seems risky, so the check is required when attempting stuff. If the mount is trained for combat (war horse), no check is needed because the action is no longer "risky." The only thing I'm possibly house-ruling is making people who aren't proficient in Animal Handling still have to make the check with a trained horse, but that's only because I'd like to highlight the advantage of taking the skill versus not.

Regardless, my interpretation doesn't slow anything down, in my experience. If a player knows they aren't well-suited for mounted combat, they tend to dismount and fight.