# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  Non-magical mounts?

## Schwann145

What advice is there for mounted characters without spells? A Cavalier Fighter, for example.
Lack of advancement rules leaves non-magical companions like horses in the dust, so how do you maintain a mount that won't immediately die in every fight after tier 1?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> What advice is there for mounted characters without spells? A Cavalier Fighter, for example.
> Lack of advancement rules leaves non-magical companions like horses in the dust, so how do you maintain a mount that won't immediately die in every fight after tier 1?


Mounted Combatant goes a long way. I've got a character using it (he's a homebrew kinda-dragon-rider, so he's got a permanent pet) and it mostly reduces the damage to his pet to really low unless someone focus-fires it.

----------


## Catullus64

This won't solve your problem completely, but remind your DM that the game statistics given for a creature are those of a _typical_ example of that species. A Warhorse has 3d10+3 Hit Points, and the given average of that is 19, but high-quality, well-bred warhorses might have 33. One can imagine legendary horses, Shadowfax-grade, having even higher stats.

In short, _typical_ horses may fall behind the level curve, but not all horses are typical.

----------


## Dark.Revenant

Sidekicks.

A 20th level Cavalier will be riding a legendary warhorse with 20 levels of Warrior, with 22d10 hit dice (231 HP), 20 STR, 20 CON, 14 DEX, plate armor barding (19 AC), proficiency in Dex saves (+8), proficiency in Athletics (+11) and Acrobatics (+8), the Defender trait, two uses of Second Wind (1d10+20), two uses of Indomitable, advantage on initiative, and an attack routine consisting of 3x melee attacks with +11 to hit and 2d6+5 damage (19-20 crit range).

----------


## Leon

This is where relying on the RAW falls short, common sense would be that a more powerful adventurer is going to find/train etc a better mount as they progress. the over simplification of 5e has a lot to answer for in many regards to topics like this.

5e as a whole treats companions of PCs as largely disposable, oops its dead summon the "fey/celestial/fiendish/dragon spirit " again which lacks the genuine feel of having a mount or companion did in other editions.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> 5e as a whole treats companions of PCs as largely disposable, oops its dead summon the "fey/celestial/fiendish/dragon spirit " again which lacks the genuine feel of having a mount or companion did in other editions.


Did you play AD&D?  A 9th level Fighter, (Lord name level), attracted oodles of 0 Level Followers, that quickly died if you took them adventuring.

Even the Elite units that made up the Lords Bodyguard  were typically just 1st level Fighters or Rangers.

One misplaced Fireball, (that expanded to fill up 33,000 Cubic Feet), could turn a Fighters Followers into a barbecue.

Are you basing your statement, Leon, off 3es Cohort feat?

----------


## Catullus64

> Did you play AD&D?  A 9th level Fighter, (Lord name level), attracted oodles of 0 Level Followers, that quickly died if you took them adventuring.
> 
> Even the Elite units that made up the Lords Bodyguard  were typically just 1st level Fighters or Rangers.
> 
> One misplaced Fireball, (that expanded to fill up 33,000 Cubic Feet), could turn a Fighters Followers into a barbecue.
> 
> Are you basing your statement, Leon, off 3es Cohort feat?


That's just it, though. Your AD&D followers could be lost, and they'd be dead; you'd have to attract new ones, or shell out Raise Dead money, and the text suggested that a PC who gets lots of people killed or treated them badly would incur a Loyalty penalty to recruits. Meaning the game expected you to treat them like people (or Brown Bears, or Elves, or whatever else they were). 

In 3.5, Animal Companions and familiars were at least costly to resummon after they died, both in GP and XP.

By contrast, 5e minion-summoning magic features, particularly those of recent publications, go out of their way to minimize any real consequences or friction for losing or abusing your pets. Hence they are disposable in a way earlier companions, be they followers, cohorts, or familiars were not. 

There's also been a trend to reduce all friction and inconvenience associated with summoning spells.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

Which in play meant that a player character almost never took their Followers adventuring with them, in my experience.

Animal Friendship lead to many, many animals being killed as meat shields.  (One just had to go searching for targets.)

I also think people are forgetting that Summon Monster, Shadow Monsters and other similar spells existed in AD&D.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Which in play meant that a player character almost never took their Followers adventuring with them, in my experience.
> 
> Animal Friendship lead to many, many animals being killed as meat shields.  (One just had to go searching for targets.)
> 
> I also think people are forgetting that Summon Monster, Shadow Monsters and other similar spells existed in AD&D.


Yeah. One of the major sticking points about the PHB beastmaster ranger is that its companion is squishy enough that you end up with an easily destroyed, yet expensive and painful to replace *subclass*. Whose power is entirely up to the DM.

And since 3e's Leadership was well and thoroughly busted (and fundamentally so), I don't think that's a good example of anything.

----------


## Catullus64

> Which in play meant that a player character almost never took their Followers adventuring with them, in my experience.
> 
> Animal Friendship lead to many, many animals being killed as meat shields.  (One just had to go searching for targets.)
> 
> I also think people are forgetting that Summon Monster, Shadow Monsters and other similar spells existed in AD&D.


It's a difficult balance to strike, because the very thing in question (a companion being impossible or at least difficult to replace once it's killed) encourages emotional investment in some players, discourages it in others. Consider the most recent version of the Beast Master, for instance, and how it might effect two different players. As of TCOE, a dead companion can be restored to life with a spell slot of any level, and a new one can be summoned at the end of a long rest.

Player One might say "Sweet! Now that I don't have to worry about having my companion meaningfully killed, I'm free to become emotionally attached to it."

Player Two might say "Lame. My companion is never meaningfully in danger, and I can send it on suicide detail with no ill effects. Why care about what happens to it?"

I'm definitely more like Player Two, and I think, if I read him right, so is Leon. And I think the trend of the design of spells and creature features recently is much more geared towards Player One. Having a nonmagical mount, by contrast, is much more for Player Two.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

That is an interesting formulation.
The Sidekick rules would certainly be a better fit, then, for a Type 2 Player.

----------


## JackPhoenix

> That is an interesting formulation.
> The Sidekick rules would certainly be a better fit, then, for a Type 2 Player.


Eh, sort of. Sidekicks are automatically levelled to the party's level, so it's still not a big deal if one dies, the replacement will be just as strong.

----------


## Catullus64

> Eh, sort of. Sidekicks are automatically levelled to the party's level, so it's still not a big deal if one dies, the replacement will be just as strong.


But the narrative will at least treat the loss of the sidekick as an actual death, not as a minor nuisance to be remedied with a 1st-level spell slot. The replacement will be a different person, with their own character (assuming that a replacement is readily available, which is far from certain).

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> Eh, sort of. Sidekicks are automatically levelled to the party's level, so it's still not a big deal if one dies, the replacement will be just as strong.


My personal inclination is to ignore that part of the Sidekick rules, so thank you for reminding me of this bit of RAW.

A 16th level Sidekick with a 20th level Party is not useless, (though clearly a 3rd level Sidekick with the same group will not be able to hang).

----------


## Brookshw

> What advice is there for mounted characters without spells? A Cavalier Fighter, for example.
> Lack of advancement rules leaves non-magical companions like horses in the dust, so how do you maintain a mount that won't immediately die in every fight after tier 1?


Is your DM refusing exotic animals, possibly if you go out of your way? I mean, a triceratops is only 500g...

----------


## Leon

> I also think people are forgetting that Summon Monster, Shadow Monsters and other similar spells existed in AD&D.


Spells which have nothing to do with what is being talked about.




> Did you play AD&D?  A 9th level Fighter, (Lord name level), attracted oodles of 0 Level Followers, that quickly died if you took them adventuring.
> Even the Elite units that made up the Lords Bodyguard  were typically just 1st level Fighters or Rangers.
> One misplaced Fireball, (that expanded to fill up 33,000 Cubic Feet), could turn a Fighters Followers into a barbecue.
> Are you basing your statement, Leon, off 3es Cohort feat?


Only as a cleric and i cant recall that anyone in that group ever did play a full class fighter. My statement is off the assortment of 3.5 classes/PrCs where you had a actual animal (be it augmented in some way or not ~ Paladin steed / Druid or Ranger companion etc) that came along and was wholly flesh and blood and were valued and often interegal parts of a party. That would level up gainfully to be of effectiveness to what ever the party was at in some way.

Never saw a Cohort in use in any of the groups i played with.

----------


## Psyren

+1 to the Sidekick suggestion. Tasha's even explicitly states that a sidekick can be an animal or pet, and that the Warrior sidekick in particular can be "a battle-trained beast." Since the creature in question must be CR 1/2 or less, it's not like you can grab a pegasus or dragon and apply these rules to it, it'll need to be something simpler like a horse or wolf.

----------


## Mastikator

Just allow players to get better mounts at higher levels? Griffon at T2, Wyvern in T3/T4

----------


## Unoriginal

> Eh, sort of. Sidekicks are automatically levelled to the party's level, so it's still not a big deal if one dies, the replacement will be just as strong.


Important reminder: being a friend to the NPC is a prerequisite to have them be a Sidekick.

----------


## JackPhoenix

> Important reminder: being a friend to the NPC is a prerequisite to have them be a Sidekick.


If we're talking about animals, that's not very hard to achieve.

----------


## Joe the Rat

+3 on the Sidekick approach.  

If that seems extra fussy, giving them an additional HD when the party (or master) levels, and increasing proficiency (treating total HD as level) should be sufficient to make them a bit less squishy.

Edit: This is the approach I used for NPC cohorts before Tasha's.

----------


## Myth27

Why arent you considering more powerful mounts like rhinos triceratops Pegasus griffin etc?

----------


## Schwann145

> Why arent you considering more powerful mounts like rhinos triceratops Pegasus griffin etc?


They fit certain types of fantasy, but not all. Sometimes you just want your trusty horse to be reliable without needing to "upgrade" to high-fantasy options. Or for your wolf companion to actually remain fierce and threatening without abandoning them for a dinosaur or something else. Etc.

----------

