Return to Question

The Mounted Combat rules say...

A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount, using the following rules..."

This requires that the mount be willing, but it does not say whether the rider has to be willing.

Some instances in which a rider might be unwilling could include:

*If the rider had been grappled and carried by a creature that otherwise met the definition of a mount

*If the rider began as willing but the mount was later charmed, polymorphed, frightened, or had some other change of condition such that the rider no longer wished to be a rider but had not yet had their turn and so could not dismount

*If the rider was incapacitated or rendered unconscious and so could no longer give their consent as a willing rider (but by DM's decision could physically remain on the mounted creature)

[Note for the first possibility: The grappling rules say...]

When you move, you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you [...]

[Note for the last possibility: the "Mounted Combatant" Feat explicitly requires that the rider not be incapacitated to use the feat, but the Mounted Combat rules do not]

In any of these cases, would the removal of the rider's willingness to be mounted mean that the rider would no longer be treated as being in mounted combat, even if they had not yet had the chance to dismount?

In particular, would an unwilling rider still suffer opportunity attacks if moved by the mount on the mount's turn?

The opportunity attacks rule says...

You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. [... But you] don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.

But the mounted combat rules say...

[...] if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.

The Mounted Combat rules say...

A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount, using the following rules..."

This requires that the mount be willing, but it does not say whether the rider has to be willing.

Some instances in which a rider might be unwilling could include:

• If the rider had been grappled and carried by a creature that otherwise met the definition of a mount

• If the rider began as willing but the mount was later charmed, polymorphed, frightened, or had some other change of condition such that the rider no longer wished to be a rider but had not yet had their turn and so could not dismount

• If the rider was incapacitated or rendered unconscious and so could no longer give their consent as a willing rider (but by DM's decision could physically remain on the mounted creature)

[Note for the first possibility: The grappling rules say...]

When you move, you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you [...]

[Note for the last possibility: the "Mounted Combatant" Feat explicitly requires that the rider not be incapacitated to use the feat, but the Mounted Combat rules do not]

In any of these cases, would the removal of the rider's willingness to be mounted mean that the rider would no longer be treated as being in mounted combat, even if they had not yet had the chance to dismount?

In particular, would an unwilling rider still suffer opportunity attacks if moved by the mount on the mount's turn?

The opportunity attacks rule says...

You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. [... But you] don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.

But the mounted combat rules say...

[...] if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.

A party is traveling on a path through a woods when they are simultaneously attacked by a group of orcs and a single, overly-clever ogre. The ogre grabs the party's fighter (successful grapple attack) and announces his intention to move 20 feet (speed halved) among the orcs, subjecting the fighter to multiple opportunity attacks as she leaves their reaches.

"Wait!" protests the fighter. "The opportunity attacks rule says...

"Since you are moving me, the orcs cannot attack me as you drag me past them."

"Hmmm..." considers the ogre. Knowing full well that specific beats general, he tries to think of a case in which something can explicitly provoke opportunity attacks even if it is being moved. "Aha!" he says brightly. "The grappling rules say...

When you move, you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you [...]

The ogre easily flips the fighter across his shoulders. "Now I am carrying you."

"That doesn't matter."

"If I am carrying you, I can be your mount. And the mounted combat rules say..."

"That's ridiculous," says the fighter indignantly. "First of all, you can't provoke an attack of opportunity from the orcs unless you and they are hostile, and clearly you are allies."

"You don't know that," says the ogre. "We are actually from different tribes, and it was a coincidence that we both ambushed your party at the same time. If we win, I expect we will fall to fighting one another over your loot." The orcs nod in agreement. "Besides, the DMG definition of Hostile is...

A hostile creature opposes the adventurers and their goals but doesn't necessarily attack them on sight. (DMG, p. 244)

"Setting aside the adventurer-centric language, as NPCs these orcs and I oppose one another's goals. As I move around, they could certainly choose to attack me rather than you."

"Point taken - but you still can't be my mount."

"Why not? The Mounted Combat rules say...

A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount, using the following rules..."

"I am a willing creature," says the ogre, "I am at least one size larger than you, and, as you will note from your position atop my shoulders, I have appropriate anatomy. It is still my combat turn, and I say that I am your mount."

"That's not for you to decide! I mean, you can't be my mount against my will! It says a creature can serve as a mount, and you are most definitely not serving me."

"There's no game definition of serve."

"Right, so we go with the common English meaning of 'being in service to', 'following commands'."

"I rather prefer the English meaning of 'able to be used as'; like after the orcs kill you, your helmet will serve as my chamber pot."

The rules make it clear that to be a mount, the creature has to be willing. But does the rider have to be willing as well?

And if the rider does have to be willing, does that mean a rider that has been rendered unconscious no longer counts as a rider for the purposes of mounted combat? (An unconscious person on a moving horse could not receive opportunity attacks because they could no longer consent to be a rider?)

The Mounted Combat rules say...

A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount, using the following rules..."

This requires that the mount be willing, but it does not say whether the rider has to be willing.

Some instances in which a rider might be unwilling could include:

*If the rider had been grappled and carried by a creature that otherwise met the definition of a mount

*If the rider began as willing but the mount was later charmed, polymorphed, frightened, or had some other change of condition such that the rider no longer wished to be a rider but had not yet had their turn and so could not dismount

*If the rider was incapacitated or rendered unconscious and so could no longer give their consent as a willing rider (but by DM's decision could physically remain on the mounted creature)

[Note for the first possibility: The grappling rules say...]

When you move, you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you [...]

[Note for the last possibility: the "Mounted Combatant" Feat explicitly requires that the rider not be incapacitated to use the feat, but the Mounted Combat rules do not]

In any of these cases, would the removal of the rider's willingness to be mounted mean that the rider would no longer be treated as being in mounted combat, even if they had not yet had the chance to dismount?

In particular, would an unwilling rider still suffer opportunity attacks if moved by the mount on the mount's turn?

The opportunity attacks rule says...

But the mounted combat rules say...

"Wait!" protests the fighter. "The opportunity attacks rule says...

You can make an opportunity Attack when a Hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach...[but you] don’t provoke an opportunity Attack when you Teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your Movement, action, or Reaction.

"Hmmm..." considers the ogre. Knowing full well that specific beats general, he tries to think of a case in which something can explicitly provoke opportunity attacks even if it is being moved. "Aha!" he says brightly. "The grapple rules say...

When you move, you can drag or carry the Grappled creature with you

"If I am carrying you, I can be your mount. And the mounted combat rules say..."

if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.

"That's ridiculous," says the fighter indignantly. "First of all, you can't provoke an attack of opportunity from the orcs unless you and they are Hostile, and clearly you are allies."

"You don't know that," says the ogre. "We are actually from different tribes, and it was a coincidence that we both ambushed your party at the same time. If we win, I expect we will fall to fighting one another over your loot." The orcs nod in agreement. "Besides, the DMG definition of Hostile is...

A hostile creature opposes the adventurers and their goals but doesn't necessarily attack them on sight.

"Setting aside the adventurer-centric language, as NPC's these orcs and I oppose one another's goals. As I move around, they could certainly choose to attack me rather than you."

"Why not? The Mounted Combat rules say...

And if the rider does have to be willing, does that mean a rider that has been rendered unconscious no longer counts as a rider for the purposes of mounted combat? (an unconscious person on a moving horse could not receive opportunity attacks because they could no longer consent to be a rider?)

"Wait!" protests the fighter. "The opportunity attacks rule says...

You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. [... But you] don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.

"Hmmm..." considers the ogre. Knowing full well that specific beats general, he tries to think of a case in which something can explicitly provoke opportunity attacks even if it is being moved. "Aha!" he says brightly. "The grappling rules say...

When you move, you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you [...]

"If I am carrying you, I can be your mount. And the mounted combat rules say..."

[...] if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.

"That's ridiculous," says the fighter indignantly. "First of all, you can't provoke an attack of opportunity from the orcs unless you and they are hostile, and clearly you are allies."

"You don't know that," says the ogre. "We are actually from different tribes, and it was a coincidence that we both ambushed your party at the same time. If we win, I expect we will fall to fighting one another over your loot." The orcs nod in agreement. "Besides, the DMG definition of Hostile is...

A hostile creature opposes the adventurers and their goals but doesn't necessarily attack them on sight. (DMG, p. 244)

"Setting aside the adventurer-centric language, as NPCs these orcs and I oppose one another's goals. As I move around, they could certainly choose to attack me rather than you."

"Why not? The Mounted Combat rules say...

And if the rider does have to be willing, does that mean a rider that has been rendered unconscious no longer counts as a rider for the purposes of mounted combat? (An unconscious person on a moving horse could not receive opportunity attacks because they could no longer consent to be a rider?)