Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Zalbarthemad Mar 09, 2015 13:57:09	Having a discussion with a fellow DM about mounted combat and if controlling the mount costs an action. My contention is that yes, controlling your mount costs and action. You are actively engaged in directing your mount, and the wording seems to indicate it. His contention is that no, the two are separate things and if it took an action no one would ever use mounted combat as it would be useless. Let's get the wording out of the way first. The PHB pg189 states:   Controlling a Mount While you're mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons,act independently.   You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training.   The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can m ove and act even on the turn that you mount it. An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it m oves and acts as it w ishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.   In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount. My thinking is the following: Your turn comes up and you are mounted. Thus, you can either control the mount or let it do whatever. You do not have any other choice to make but that at this time. If you decide to control your mount, you have 1 of 3 action options that you can take, as stated explicitly in the PHB. The reason to buy a warhorse is because they are especially trained for combat and will generally do what you want without controlling them. In his way of thinking directing a mount costs no actions yourself, so you are free to move, attack, disengage and skip away. Alternately you could dash, then dismount (costing half your move), move 15 feet and attack a target.
#2 Kalani Mar 09, 2015 15:35:15	That is incorrect. You have two options in combat - controlling your mount or letting it act independently.   Neither of these options requires your action. Controlling your mount simply places limits on what actions your mount can take. It is otherwise an NPC under your control, with its own move, action, and bonus action (if any).   If it required your action, it would say something to the effect of: As an action, you can control your mount. You can take the Control Mount action​ You can take an action to control your mount Or something similar. This is consistant with all other options that require your action and with the language used in the game in general.   A controlled mount has three action options. The rider has no such limitation.
#3 RulesJD Mar 10, 2015 0:45:42	Please see the following thread for an in-depth analysis: http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4183326
#4 lkwpeter Mar 10, 2015 11:13:10	RulesJD wrote:
#5 Ahglock Mar 10, 2015 11:24:30	One of my players came up with a master blaster idea. With a halfling mounted on a half Orc. Opinions on if that would work?  Would the mounted combat feat work?   My instinct says yes, but I may be biased. As I love mad max.
#6 Kalani Mar 10, 2015 11:44:08	lkwpeter wrote: