So I tried to use a warhorse with my Paladin last night, it worked great until this morning when the DM shot me a message saying that we ruled it wrong.
From what we can tell it is impossible to use a trained warhorse to trample someone.
When controlling a mount you can only use the Dash, Disengage, and Dodge actions. The warhorses Trample ability only works when it moves 20 feet right before it uses an attack action. So the only way to get a horse to trample from what we see is to unmount the horse and hope he decides for himself to trample.
I am assuming the a Paladin's intellegent stead can trample as it is independent, but the standard warhorse can't. Seems crazy to me, are we reading this wrong?
JesterOC
First of all, does that make a lick of sense to you? If it doesn't (and you're be right to say it doesn't), that's because the rules are descriptive, not prescriptive. This means you are not limited to what the rules say when it comes to doing things. You are only limited to what the DM says the outcome is. If your DM says that you cannot run someone down with your warhorse which is a very iconic thing to do for a mounted warrior, then your DM is not doing a very good job.
As far as the rules go, while you're mounted and in control of the mount, the intention as I understand it is to make sure you're not getting extra attacks as a result. So tell your DM you yourself are not attacking, but your warhorse will be doing so on your turn with hooves and trampling charge.
To say the DM is not doing a very good job because you disagree with his ruling is wrong. Now if the DM doesn't like or agree with the rule but follows it anyway, that's a bit baffling as he's allowed to change it. Still not wrong but then he's being a slave to the rules instead of using them to run the type of game he wants to. Not everyone plays the game the same, and they aren't doing a bad job just because they don't do what you would.
On the topic at hand, from reading the text your DM is correct, but I would see if maybe you could work something out with him like this. Your mount can normal move and use the actions dash, dodge, and disengage. You can still use your action separately(on the same turn).
Ask him if you can use your action(after the mount has moved 20ft.) to use the Hooves attack and trample. Nothing specifically disallows this and it makes sense both balance wise and story wise. This is supporting what iserith said in a little longer phrasing.
bonethug0108 wrote:
A DM following the rules as best as he understands them is doing a bad job? I'm going to have to disagree with you. He actually ruled it exactly as the rules say. That's actually doing a good job adjucating.
And again I find it funny that some people like to say that if the rules say no but make sense, change them so you can say yes for a better story, going against what makes sense. But then when a rule says no and doesn't make sense, it's a silly rule because it doesn't make sense. I've seen way too many people on here arguing against realism, and then bemoan the rules when they don't make sense. Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too(btw, that saying never made sense to me).
Your mount being limited to the dash, disengage and dodge actions only applies when you are actively controlling the mount. At any point, you could choose to let the mount act on its own initiative, at which point the mount gains its full normal actions, but acts as directed by the DM. Some DMs might allow you to choose the mounts actions (within reason) as it is a PC-allied NPC. The downside of this option however, is that you and your mount would no longer be acting on the same initiative count and as such, it may limit your options to the ready action (depending on what your mount does).
The warhorse has two main attack actions - Trampling Charge and Hooves. The first clearly needs the movement to get the extra damage and possible hooves attack, but the hooves attack is the in-combat trampling that you want. The description of mounted combat on PHB198 doesn't imply the horse can't attack when you're mounted on it - but you do need to choose to allow it to act independently of you, otherwise you are controlling it and can only dash, disengage or dodge. To me, this makes sense - you are holding the reins or otherwise giving the mount instructions to control its movement. If, on the other hand, you give up that control and focus on combat, the horse can use its hooves to attack (effectively trampling targets) and you can attack from the mount. The only possible problem might be that the warhorse has its own turn in the initiative order and you may not get to choose its target (it is acting independently of you), but the target directly in front of it would seem logical.
bonethug0108 wrote:
For the record he is more than willing to come up with a way to make it work. My simple solution would have trample be part of a move not a prelude to an attack. He had suggested the warhorse use my attacks, which works for me. I was hoping that we were reading it wrong and that a sensible set of guidelines for this existed. We can come up with a work around, it appears that during the playtest no one tried this, or perhaps they changed the rules for trampling at the last minute and did not see how they interacted with the mount rules.
Why a workaround? - it already works according to the PHB198. What do you want to be able to do that you can't now? The warhorse can make a Trample Charge as it moves into combat (with hooves attack) and from then on can make a hooves attack every turn, as long as you choose to let it act independently of you (has its own turn in the initiative) with you mounted on it and making your own attacks on your turn.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
Um... Horses may not be intelligent by humanoid standards - but they are clever enough to know how to kick someone who is an enemy. In addition, a warhorse is a trained combat mount, and as such - should know how to fight with the same level of intelligence, as an equestrian mount which can perform tricks.
One option is to assume the training of a mount equates to intelligence. The rule states "Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently". No-one is going to say a warhorse (Int 2) is as intelligent as a dragon, but the sentence does not preclude a warhorse's inclusion under the definition of 'intelligent'. Like I say, it's only an option, but if a warhorse is intelligent enough to be trained (to accept a rider, wear barding, or trapple an enemy) then it could be covered by the rules as is.
[Edit]: the steed from 'Find Steed' is unusually intelligent, which might imply that warhorses are intelligent, just not to the point of being able to understand a language (Int 6).
[Edit]: Kalani must have been typing when I was! 
Dyndrilliac wrote:
And some groups enjoy playing by the book. That's not a bad thing. I totally get that it's not your cup of tea and runs counter to your cool story style. Some people hate the whole, "everything should lead to something cool and interesting" thing. Some people like dying because the dice say so and not because it was a cool moment. Not everyone thinks setbacks are better than outright failures. To lord that as a better way is wrong. To say that people playing by the book are playing poorly is wrong.
I get what style you like and that you think it's a superior style(and then use broad terms to try to lump other styles to eventually "lead" to your style). I'm not even opposed to your style. I use it quite often actually, but it's not the only way I play(even in the same campaign or in the same session).
You give great advice all the time, but it's very annoying when you call other people's play styles poor. Your suggestions are great but there are times where your delivery is very poor(mostly when you use them as the best way to do something while saying that other way sucks).
JesterOC wrote:
The two categories seem to me to be about different, though not necessarily exclusive, situations: 'controlled' is for movement and 'independent' is for combat. A rider could control a trained mount in combat, too, of course, but would forego combat actions as the mount is being controlled. In combat, though, the rider gives the mount free rein (literally) and lets it act on its own, with the bonus of its attack but the risk of it acting in a way the rider does not want ("flee from combat" etc.) Both cetegories are necessary because they have different purposes but an intelligent mount could be used for either on any given turn. Anyway, it sounds like you've found a solution with your DM that you like and that's the main thing.
bonethug0108 wrote:
JesterOC wrote:
Yeah after rereading it intelligent creatures always act independently, while other mounts can be controlled(if trained) or act independently.
"but you must be riding a nonintelligent, trained mount in order to control it."
I agree with everything in your post except this phrase. If a rider cannot control an intelligent mount it would be like taking an untamed bronco into a fight and hoping it did the right thing. 'Control' in the description only applies to the mount's movement (Dash, Disengage, Dodge) and none of the descriptions in Controlling a Mount indicate to me that intelligent mounts can't be controlled.
"While you are mounted you have two options..." Not "while you are mounted on a domesticated mount..."
"Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently" - sure, but not "only act independently"
"You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider" - if you're on a dragon, or other intelligent mount, then this is a given.
"Domesticated ... creatures are assumed to have such training" - creatures such as dragons and hippogriffs would need to be trained to be controlled.
The choice is the character's as to whether they control the (intelligent and properly trained) mount's movement or let it act independently. Non-intelligent mounts can't act independently, but I would argue a warhorse that has been trained is not non-intelligent.
Thanks Kalani, I will reread it just to be sure but I thing you have nailed it. At the same time I think El_condoro has a point too, but in my humble opinion it would be a hard sell for a dragon.
I can imagine where an intelegent creature can be trained, but only if it has complete trust in the rider. Imagine if you have a small kobold on your shoulder who asked to ride you into battle. If you say yes you sure as hell would not be acting like a trained animal. You will do what you want and let him tag along. However if you had yoda on your back, and he said "If you don't do everything I say without hesitation, doomed we both shall be" then I think I would forgo my instincts and let the Jedi master take control.
But I think no dragon would be considered trained to a mere normal human. I consider the dragons from the Movie How to train your dragon, more animal like, not D&D dragon like.
Are you saying Toothless wasn't intelligent? Although an animated movie, the bonding between dragon and rider is exactly the sort of thing I'm imagining. On another level, the Mother of Dragons, Daenerys Stormborn, is one who is raising her dragons from birth and should be able to ride them when they mature, if she were in a D&D game. If a mount can't be controlled it is a big risk, in my opinion.
Maybe I missed it, but is this a regular warhorse, or a summoned steed? Because if the prior, it probably needs to be controlled and only has movement (which is still pretty powerful).
If it is a summoned steed it is an unusually intelligent (for a horse) ally of the paladin. I would even rule that for simplicity it acts on the paladin's turn and that the paladin's player (in most cases) would run the mount as an NPC.
JesterOC wrote:
The rules on mounted combat on PHB 198 are clear that a controlled mount acts in the initiative of the rider and can only use the Dash, Disengage and Dodge actions in addition to its movement. Also clear is that intelligent mounts like dragons act independent on their own initiative, with no limitations to their actions. The rules seem to imply that you can choose whether the mount is controlled or not every round, but that's less clear.
These rules work well for mounts that are only meant to contribute to the combat as part of the players movement, like the average horse, camel or donkey. The mount acts on the initiative of the rider so that he can use it's movement as if it were his own. The actions it's allowed all relate to movement as well.
The rules also work well for the intelligent mounts. A dragon is a member of the party, an npc in his own right.
The problem arrises with mounts that are bred for combat, like the warhorse. Its statblock has some nice attacks, and it makes sense that the player can make use of those attacks somehow. Now some have stated that the warhorse can be made to act indepedent for the round, and if the DM agrees the mount can make it's attack on it's own initiative then. This assumes the rider can choose to control the mount or not every round. This solution doesn't appeal to me. First, it means horses switching between their own initiative and that of their rider, which can lead to a lot of confusion as to who's turn it is and whether a mount has or hasn't acted in the round. Second, it doesn't make much sense to me that a warhorse would have any input of his own in the decision if and who it should attack. If it gets the spurs to signal it should trample an orc, it should (attempt) to trample that orc.
My solution as a DM would be to rule that the warhorse can use the attack action in addition to the Dash, Disengage and Dodge actions. It's a simple ruling that reduces bookkeeping (no seperate or switching initiatives) and makes for faster gameplay.
Plus it gives me the opportunity to mix things up. The DMG has the Overrun action that would also be appropriate to warhorses. I've already given the wolves that my goblins use the ability to use Help to aid their riders (replacing their own pack tactics ability).
What surprises me though, is it that there's unclearity on how warhorses can be used at all. Mounted combat on warhorses is something that will come up on a regular basis, and there are numerous ways Wizards could have addressed the issue. As part of the general mounted combat rules, as part of the warhorse statblock or through the Mounted Combatent feat, for example. I would expect a clear rule on something so common.
I think people are forgetting the precedent the Ranger's Beast Companion sets. You have to use YOUR action to command it to attack. I think that would fit in line with needing to use your action to command a mount to attack.
When the Ranger hits 5th level he can use his attack action to attack twice, or attack once and command his beast to attack. I would extend this to mounts also. Any class that has extra attack can exchange 1 attack of their own to allow the mount to have 1 attack.
Basically it's a balance issue. If you are giving people free attacks just for having a mount you are breaking the expectations of the system. If you give up your action for a mount attack, you are keeping those expectations in line.
I think the current rules are more than enough to be playable (Though no multi creature trample). I would not want to use the Ranger's beast model at all. You would get all of the weaknesses of that approach with none of the benefits.
I wasn't implying that you should use BC rules for mounts, just that the action for action switch has precedent when you look at BCs. You give up one of your attacks to let the mount attack. It's just me helping to illustrate advice given earlier in the thread has basis in the game mechanics already.
bonethug0108 wrote:
When I read this, my first question is "What is a 'Trample'?" because it sounds like hoofing somebody in the face. However, I'm actually thinking it's more like 'running somebody down', in which case the 20' of movement (although marginal/arbitrary) makes sense. That's the space it needs to build speed and to hone in on a target. If it's too close to you, I would imagine the target could actually evade more easily, whereas if the horse has a head of steam it can correct its path and not lose momentum.
Does that make sense to anybody?
Would allowing the horse to attack break the game? Even if the character didn't have to pay for it with his own action?
Here's a thought. You have to a) be in a place where you can have your horse and b) be able to get that 20' head start.
USE YOUR HORSE
You won't be mounting up for every bar fight, nor will you have your horse inside a castle. It's equally unlikely that you'll be trotting around a tomb or dungeon.
Without any feats or magic powers, your horse will likely be a corpse if you take it injto many squabbles.
Ergo, you won't have your horse around all the time.
HEAD START
20' isn't a huge distance. But, once you're locked in fighting, moving 20' will typically provoke an opportunity attack. So you may get 1 trample, then you'd have to trade opportunity attack(s) for a trample attack. Sounds like an interesting choice.
In short: it doesn't sound like a huge thing to me, in real gameplay.
TRAINING
One thing I'd likely require for a character to use a trained warhorse in battle: I'd require them to have proficiency in Animal Handling. That way they know how to drive the warhorse properly. And that's also a cost, since the skill isn't terribly useful. That's paying a cost to get an advantage, which is good game design, IMO.
Heck, I might even call a warhorse a "tool" that you could train in. Perhaps.