Mounted PCs?

[BruceDM]

How do you deal with PCs that like to ride horses into battle, dismount/mount several times during a battle.

I don't want to clutter up the Combat Tracker with mounts for everyone (Party is 7 PC's and each has a mount)

What I have been doing is just dropping a mount token on the map and moving it along underneath the PC, but that is cumbersome.

I thought about making a Mounted Token for the PCs and swapping it out as they mount/dismount. I guess I could keep the same token and just upscale it when mounted.

Just curious how others have dealt with this situation?

[LordEntrails]

I have the NPCs attack the mount. They are much easier to kill than the PC's. And if PC's are having to spend their actions on Handle Animal checks... After you kill a couple of horses, the PCs will no longer take them into battle if they can help it.

Err, maybe that was not he type of advice you wanted *G*?

[Zacchaeus]

I’ve never had to deal with mounted PCs but reading the rules it would seem there’s no choice but to give the players the appropriate NPC and have those on the map and the CT. since the mounts can be targeted etc (and can make attacks) then you don’t have much choice, unless you go theatre of the mind.

[GavinRuneblade]

So, this is actually a really big topic, and I have a few questions for you.

#1 Are your players power gamers or do they just love horses and want to run a cavalry story?

#2 Did you and/or your players read the nerdarchy article on mounted combat in 5e? Because virtually every statement in that article is wrong or misleading and could cause a lot of problems at the table. Especially a VTT like fantasy grounds.

#3 Do the PCs actually use their mounts in combat or do they use them for faster overland movement and typically dismount for battle? Because if so, you can probably just handwave the mounts to be parked nearby and simply not exist for combat except as a narrative statement as combat begins and ends.

#4 How well do you know the rules for mounted combat?

I myself am Hungarian, and was a competitive saber fighter, so I totally get the love of horses and most of my campaigns have either NPCs or PCs who are mounted. A one-off game I ran just last Saturday had a character based on Don Quixote. There are great ways to make it easy and fun and there are very common mistakes that make it hell on the DM.

My basic tips, assuming you understand and are comfortable with the RAW mounted combat rules, your players are having fun not power gaming, and you just want it to go smoothly:
* Use control+mouse scroll wheel to upsize/downsize PC tokens as needed.
* Handwave mounts when the PC is not on them. You agree to not have fleeing enemies murder the mounts out of spite or have monsters eat them during the night or when they are tied to a tree outside the dungeon. When PCs start a combat they intend to be unmounted for they tell you and the mounts simply don't exist; there's no time wasted mounting/dismounting. When a PC dismounts, the mount runs off the map using the dodge action (no attacks of opportunity) and waits patiently for the battle to end so it never needs to appear on the map or on the combat tracker. Handwaved away.
* The PCs agree to control their mounts in battle except for particularly dramatic moments that serve to push the story forward. Typically I ask my players to consider it as important a decision as when to use an inspiration but they are free to simply make the decision themselves. Controlled mounts have the same initiative as the rider and are never on the combat tracker unless you want to track HP or something but see the bullet above about handwaving the mount.
* Just like the PCs choose to use an independent mount only when it furthers the story, I only choose to attack the mounts to further the story. Hungry direwolf wants dinner? The horse is food the knight in metal armor is not food. Raging Orc barbarian, evil cultist, etc, they hit the knight because the knight hits them. Handwaved away.

To use prof. Tolkien's words from Tree and Leaf: this is not willing suspension of disbelief, it is a conscious act of narrative co-creation. The players and I agree to keep things simple (especially the motivations of the NPCs who choose not to murder the horse). It is close enough to realism to make the experience fun for everyone and simple to adjudicate so battles don't get bogged down.

This pretty much solves all the problems except for a player who wants their mount uncontrolled to gain an advantage, especially competitive advantage over the other players at the table. That is a whole other issue.

But, let me know on your answers and I'll get you the longer version of my answer to help more.

[LordEntrails]

Though I didn't say so, and implied differently in my earlier post, but usually do what Gavin said. But, here's the part from the OP that made me react differently;

dismount/mount several times during a battle.

To me, that's just annoying

[BruceDM]

I am familiar with the RAW on mounted combat, though they are somewhat lacking in detail. My players arn't really powergamers but a few have realized the huge mobility boost. The hoping on and off isn't a common occurrence but has happened, mainly to quickly get to the other side of the battle where something else is happening.

I was more interested in how people have implemented it within the fantasy grounds framework. I am definitely inclined to just enlarge the players normal token when mounted and place a token, or ignore a riderless horse.

[GavinRuneblade]

I am familiar with the RAW on mounted combat, though they are somewhat lacking in detail. My players arn't really powergamers but a few have realized the huge mobility boost. The hoping on and off isn't a common occurrence but has happened, mainly to quickly get to the other side of the battle where something else is happening.

I was more interested in how people have implemented it within the fantasy grounds framework. I am definitely inclined to just enlarge the players normal token when mounted and place a token, or ignore a riderless horse.

Knowing how you and your players understand and want to use the rules matters for implementation. There are some of the mounted combat rules that are wonky. Since your players are pretty laid back and just looking for movement there's not a whole lot to worry about.

Just keep in mind that the rider's move does not become the mount's move, you can only mount or dismount in a turn not both in the same turn (even with haste), and you have to be within 5-feet of the mount in order to get onto it regardless of your size or reach or speed.

I strongly recommend that you come up with house rules for reach and "where on the mount is the rider". The official rules as written are weird: no specific rules were given therefore the general rules remain in effect in all ways. This is confirmed by Mike Mearles in a tweet and Jeremy Crawford in a sage advice podcast. the general rules are that the rider is (usually) medium size, taking up one square of a large (or larger) mount, and still has only got 5' reach. So if the rider is on the left side of the horse, she cannot hit anyone on the right side of the horse except by using a bow or a reach weapon like a lance or polearm. And from the middle of a 3x3 elephant, she cannot attack anyone at all except with a bow or a reach weapon. This gets seriously confusing and is why I recommend using a house rule for it. Doing this in FG is really hard because it doesn't handle stacking tokens well.

My own houserule is that the rider and mount basically take up all of each other's squares essentially acting as a single token. This is undeniably a buff, so do be aware of it. But it makes things so much simpler and allows me to keep the mount off the combat tracker and map both. If you play RAW, you need to track where on the mount the rider is located. The mount becomes a box within which the rider can move using their own speed, while the box moves using the mount's speed. What happens when an enemy can reach the mount but not the rider (because the enemy is on the wrong side of the mount) and the rider wants to direct an attack onto themselves? Per RAW the attack is resolved against the rider even though it makes no sense because the rider is too far away (specific rule takes precedent over general, and the specific rule says the rider can do this with no regard for reach or range).

Add the mount's dodge (grantdisatk) and hooves (fixed melee bonus, with no stat and fixed bonus on the damage) as powers on the character sheet. Track them separately from the rider. Remember that this means the rider can ignore attacks of opportunity at will (mount disengages then moves) or all attacks are at disadvantage (mount dodges) against the rider and mount both at will. This is why you add them to the rider. Dash and Disengage of course needs nothing on the character sheet. I put the mount's move as special movement on the first page just for a reminder. The hooves allow the mount and rider both to get attacks of opportunity so either two on one enemy or one each on two enemies or the rider can use their reaction for something else and still have the horse kick an enemy as an oppy. If two on one the order is determined by the player per rules for tied initiative.

Really that's all it takes mechanically if you use my four tips above. Pretty simple and straightforward implementation wise.

[leozelig]

I have mostly run NPCs on monstrous mounts. My players ride horses overland but leave them outside. So for NPCs I use both tokens, but the riders tend to dismount for combat more often than not, and the mount acts independently on its own initiative count. Otherwise I grind it out and just try to keep things rolling as much as possible.

I would probably do the same for PCs, but maybe make the mounts invisible on the tracker (and no map token) while mounted. I like the idea of enlarging the PC token, but even that requires some fiddling by the DM if they are mounting and dismounting regularly. Bringing a riding horse into a dungeon seems like the equivalent of wearing your shoes to bed, but hey whatever. I think most players would rethink that choice based on the slowdown in combat if nothing else.