Jump to content

Mounted Combat


bigdamnhero

Recommended Posts

I just started a new 6ed FH game. As I haven't actually run a fantasy campaign since probably 4ed, I've been brushing up on a number of rules & situations that don't tend to come up much in other genres. Like fighting from horseback.

 

The 5ed/6ed rules on mounted combat (6e2 p30, 5er p368) seem awfully convoluted to me. Multiple Riding Rolls even with a trained mount seems like it would really slow things down. And the idea that mounted characters always have at least a -2 OCV disadvantage and no DCV modifier seems counterintuitive to me. I dug out my old 3ed copy of FH, and there they treat the horse much more as an extension of the rider than a separate character: you use the horse's Movement, no OCV penalty, but use the DCV of horse or rider whichever is lower. That might be a tad oversimplified for PCs, but it might make mounted mooks simpler.

 

How do you handle mounted combat in your games? Do you follow RAW pretty closely? If so, what works well and what don't you like? Or do you have your own approach or house rules, and what works well/poorly about that for you? Basically looking for different ideas & opinions. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have always used the 3rd Edition FH rules for mounted combat of any kind. Not just horses. I once has a campaign where all the players were tiny fey who rode birds like the animated movie "Epic". We used the 3rd Ed. rules for that too and it was fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FHC's mounted combat rules (FHC 157) don't seem complicated or punishing to me. They are both simpler and less punishing than the rules for Mounted Combat are in Pathfinder. I haven't had the opportunity to do so, but I would follow them by the book.

Penalty Skill Levels to offset the OCV penalty for mounted combat are cheap, and a penalty to OCV while mounted is completely justified given that your movement isn't entirely under your control. There is no mention of a DCV penalty for either the rider or mount, meaning both keep their own DCV. Remember, mounts are not vehicles, the sections regarding vehicles in combat are specific to that type of equipment/game element. Riding checks are only called for if your mount isn't trained for combat (and in that case the penalties are far worse than just -2 OCV). It is also worth noting that Combat trained mounts often have Riding purchased themselves, specifically to act as a complementary roll to their rider's check.

The only thing I dislike about mounted/vehicular combat is that the Speed Chart makes everything so much more complicated than it needs to be, but that is a problem with the characteristic, not with mounts/vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is good to have some way to distinguish between those that have been trained to fight on horseback and those that have not.  :-)  The penalty skill levels are one way to do that.  You might also have a skill called, for example, mounted combat which would remove the need for the penalty skill levels (by removing the OCV penalties - you would need riding AND mounted combat for that).

It think those trained should be able to go without making rolls until they are take BODY from an attack, or their mount does.

 

However, it would depend on the type of game you want to run.  A horse could be modelled simply as additional running with a bonus to lance attack damage and casual strength.  That could be limited by Physical Manifestation and OIF (though someone with enough STR might separate you from your horse more like an OAF)...  :-)

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the FHC rules are much simpler and I think make more sense to me.

 

And I definitely agree with the concept of distinguishing between those who are trained to fight mounted and those who aren't. My problem with the -2 OCV is that historically-speaking I don't think anyone has ever found fighting from horseback against someone on foot to be a disadvantage - far from it. PSLs to offset the modifier are fine and a great way for PCs to distinguish themselves. But it still assumes that as a baseline the mook on horseback is at a disadvantage in trying to hit the mook on foot, and I'm not sure I buy that.

 

We are using Hit Locations in this game, so the cavalryman gets to roll for Head Shot or High Shot, while the infantryman can only roll Low Shot or Leg Shot in return, so there's potentially a damage bonus there. But you still have to hit first.

 

Remember, mounts are not vehicles...

The 5ed & 6ed mounted combat rules explicitly treat mounts as vehicles. Which is part of the problem IMO.

 

The only thing I dislike about mounted/vehicular combat is that the Speed Chart makes everything so much more complicated than it needs to be, but that is a problem with the characteristic, not with mounts/vehicles.

Yeah, I like the SPD Chart normally, but it does complicate things here. As GM I usually dodge it by making sure mount and rider have the same SPD.

 

 

However, it would depend on the type of game you want to run.  A horse could be modelled simply as additional running with a bonus to lance attack damage and casual strength.  That could be limited by Physical Manifestation and OIF (though someone with enough STR might separate you from your horse more like an OAF)...  :-)

I think for mounted mooks that's the simplest way to handle it, with a little more crunch for PCs. And of course it's a Heroic game, not paying points for the horse, so the exact point-modelling is less important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming both rider and mount are trained for combat, when do you think a Riding Roll (or other Sill Roll) should be required? My initial thoughts:

  • Horse makes a Half or Full Move: No
  • Horse & rider first join melee fight: Maybe?
  • Rider makes an attack from horseback: No
  • Horse makes an attack at rider's direction: Yes
  • Rider takes BODY damage: No
  • Horse takes BODY damage: Yes
  • Rider uses horse's STR or Move to add to damage (lance charge, Move By/Thru, etc): Yes

Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how would you handle a rider getting unhorsed, or having their horse knocked out from underneath them? 6e2 talks about it in terms of Knockback, but most FH games don't use KB and most heroic-level Fantasy attacks don't do a significant amount of KB anyway, especially when we're talking about Killing Attack weapons like lances. Plus horses have KBR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming both rider and mount are trained for combat, when do you think a Riding Roll (or other Sill Roll) should be required? My initial thoughts:

  • Horse makes a Half or Full Move: No
  • Horse & rider first join melee fight: Maybe?
  • Rider makes an attack from horseback: No
  • Horse makes an attack at rider's direction: Yes
  • Rider takes BODY damage: No
  • Horse takes BODY damage: Yes
  • Rider uses horse's STR or Move to add to damage (lance charge, Move By/Thru, etc): Yes

Your thoughts?

 

I think I mostly agree with you.  However, I would reverse the decision about rider and horse taking BODY.  I guess it depends on the horse, a warhorse is probably much less likely to rear at taking damage and then not require a riding roll.

 

If the rider takes damage then I think the riding roll is required to stop them falling off.  

 

As far as knockback goes, in heroic games it is more likely knockdown that you are talking abut.  The lack of BODY damage should not be a huge issue because it should only take 1" to go far enough to be completely off the back of your horse, the horse's KBR would not count unless you were stitched into your saddle... :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the FHC rules are much simpler and I think make more sense to me.

 

And I definitely agree with the concept of distinguishing between those who are trained to fight mounted and those who aren't. My problem with the -2 OCV is that historically-speaking I don't think anyone has ever found fighting from horseback against someone on foot to be a disadvantage - far from it.

 

...

 

The 5ed & 6ed mounted combat rules explicitly treat mounts as vehicles. Which is part of the problem IMO.

 

...

 

Assuming both rider and mount are trained for combat, when do you think a Riding Roll (or other Sill Roll) should be required?

 

Historically speaking, the advantage to being mounted was that being up on a horse puts you outside the reach of most hand to hand attacks and short weapons (similarly mounted fighter often carried slightly longer weapons to allow them to fight foot-troops). The unequal reach rules put the on-foot fighter at a similar disadvantage as the mounted fighter, meaning it equals out in most cases. While the horse is within reach, only an idiot would attack the horse; the horse was the most valuable loot you were likely to acquire on the battlefield. The armor rarely fits, the weapons are rarely any better than your own and usually too long to easily use on foot.

If you want to play up the advantage of mounted combat a little more, I vaguely recall Fantasy HERO suggesting a +1 or +2 OCV modifier for being on Higher Ground (it wasn't included in FHC so I can't be sure ATM). In most (but not all) cases a mounted fighter would gain that bonus over fighters on-foot. Meaning if they also have PSLs to counter the penalties then it is entirely advantageous to be mounted. It is also worth noting that if you are mounted you can avoid penalties for poor footing and bad terrain that fighters on foot cannot (granted the horse does suffer the penalties, but that isn't a big deal since you will be attacking far more often than your horse will).

 

I can only cite CC/FHC in regards to RAW, since I've never actually used 6th edition (I skipped straight from playing 5th to GMing CC/FHC). In CC/FHC Mounts and Vehicles are described separately, with entirely different combat modifiers that relate to the fact that a vehicle can't control itself, while a mount can. Mounts borrow from vehicles rules regarding the fact that the rider uses the mounts movement, and has to act at the mounts DEX, but that is basically all.

 

If both were trained, I think I would only call for a Riding check:

1.  To reduce the damage from the Unhorse Maneuver (using the rules for breakfall).

2.  To prevent/reduce damage when your mount was Knock Out or Slain (again, using the rules for breakfall).

Otherwise as far as I can tell, the rules in FHC never require you to make a Riding check if you and your mount are trained, and I see no reason to complicate or slow down play by changing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my FH campaigns I did the following:

  • Combat riding (more expensive than plain riding) skill to represent someone highly trained in mounted combat (knights & mounted archers)
  • Penalty -2 OCV applied (the players would always buy the PSL to offset)
  • Trained warhorses did not react to noisy combat, fire, or even 'flesh wounds'
  • Rider or mount taking a major wound would have to make a combat riding roll to stay on the horse
  • If the rider wanted the mount to attack a combat riding roll had to be made

 

Players with regular riding rolls had to make a riding roll every time they tried to attack someone while mounted.  Mounts not trained for battle would require riding rolls if ridden into battle.  Being hit caused a riding roll.

 

Basically if you were not trained to fight mounted you ride up, jump off your horse and attack from the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I hate when I start a thread and then forget to reply to it!

 

As far as knockback goes, in heroic games it is more likely knockdown that you are talking abut. 

True. Tho aside from Impairing/Disabling wounds, the Knockdown rules are basically just "if you would take KB, then you fall down;" so I tend to use the terms interchangeably.

 

I usually tend to use a kind of Standard Effect rule for Knockdown: instead of actually rolling KB for every attack, I just ignore it unless the attack does more than 7 BODY (for Normal Attacks) or 11 BODY (for Killing Attacks), and if it does I have the target make a STR Roll to keep standing at -1 for every BODY above the threshhold. So we could certainly use that for determining if someone gets unhorsed.

 

I don't much like the Unhorse maneuver as written either, as the target has no chance to resist. So Miles Mookley with his 10 STR manages to tag Sir Studalot, and Studalot's 20 STR does nothing to help him? Hmm...maybe we should treat Unhorse more like a Disarm rather than a Trip?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historically speaking, the advantage to being mounted was that being up on a horse puts you outside the reach of most hand to hand attacks and short weapons (similarly mounted fighter often carried slightly longer weapons to allow them to fight foot-troops). The unequal reach rules put the on-foot fighter at a similar disadvantage as the mounted fighter, meaning it equals out in most cases.

I hadn't even thought about using that as an extension of the Weapon Reach rules - nice idea!

 

If you want to play up the advantage of mounted combat a little more, I vaguely recall Fantasy HERO suggesting a +1 or +2 OCV modifier for being on Higher Ground (it wasn't included in FHC so I can't be sure ATM).

Yes, that's mentioned in FH6, tho it first says to just use the Special Hit Locations. Which again, doesn't help you actually hit someone. Honestly I've never understood why Hero doesn't have some sort of High Ground combat modifier for melee - it's such a staple of most every genre. But I agree whether you call being mounted a Weapon Reach advantage, or a Relative Position advantage, it amounts to the same thing.

 

I can only cite CC/FHC in regards to RAW, since I've never actually used 6th edition (I skipped straight from playing 5th to GMing CC/FHC). In CC/FHC Mounts and Vehicles are described separately, with entirely different combat modifiers that relate to the fact that a vehicle can't control itself, while a mount can. Mounts borrow from vehicles rules regarding the fact that the rider uses the mounts movement, and has to act at the mounts DEX, but that is basically all

I don't think the mount/vehicle rules changed significantly (or at all?) between 5ed & 6ed. But even in FHC, the section on Mounted Combat starts out with the sentence "A mount essentially functions as a vehicle." (FHC p157)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always required a mounted combat familiarity to fight from horseback (1 point), and you only need a riding roll to do any non-standard combat maneuver, to do something fancy, or to control the pet after a presence attack etc.

I like the idea of making it a Weapon Familiarity rather than a separate Skill, or a flat penalty (that you have to buy off with PSLs).

 

Would you make Mounted Archery a separate WF? FH6 p196 says normal bows (not longbows) can be used from horseback without penalty. (I would assume the -2 OCV from 6e2 p31 still applies, but it doesn't specify that?) But that seems a tad easy to me, given historically how specialized horse archery has been. So I'm thinking separate WFs for Mounted Melee and Mounted Missile Combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Phrase "Functions As" is a bit misleading. What they really mean is that it uses the same basic control rules: Vehicle/Mounts have their own Movement, Dex & Speed you have to work within when controlling them. Where they differ is that Vehicle Combat and Mounted Combat each have their own combat modifiers, which aren't relevant to one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are using Hit Locations in this game, so the cavalryman gets to roll for Head Shot or High Shot, while the infantryman can only roll Low Shot or Leg Shot in return, so there's potentially a damage bonus there. But you still have to hit first.

None of your infantry have polearms, pikes, or spears of any sort?  How strange... especially considering the cheap/easy nature of their construction and their steady use against cavalry (especially armored cavalry)... for centuries.

 

Infantrymen with polearms, pikes, and/or spears were far more numerous than sword/mace/axe/etc.-bearing infantry (primarily due to the high cost associated with the manufacture of metal weapons).  Polearms, pikes, and spears were certainly capable of more than low/leg shots, too, so I'd expect the infantryman to be able to roll for more than low/leg shots if equipped with a polearm, pike, or spear.

 

So, our of pure curiosity, what's with no polearms, pikes, or spears in the hands of infantrymen your world?  Are there no trees or wood in this world of yours or something???  Nothing at all suitable from which a simple, cheap, and effective pole or spear-like weapon can be hewn and used against mounted opponents???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, our of pure curiosity, what's with no polearms, pikes, or spears in the hands of infantrymen your world?  Are there no trees or wood in this world of yours or something???  Nothing at all suitable from which a simple, cheap, and effective pole or spear-like weapon can be hewn and used against mounted opponents???

The world could be like Tamriel (the world in the Elder Scrolls games). Where, for no particular reason, you just never see any polearms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarcasm wasn't intended; I was truly surprised.  This is, indeed, why I inquired as to why there were no polearms and the like in your world -- it struck me as very odd, but I figured it had been thought through.

Ah, apologies. I'm not sure how I gave you that impression, but of course there are spears and polearms in my world - I agree that would be odd.

 

I was merely saying that a mounted fighter with [weapon] is going to have a reach/height advantage over a foot soldier with [same weapon]. After all, cavalry get to use spears/lances as well. I think I would treat mounted weapons as effectively having one Length longer than normal (except for Extra-Long weapons, which probably shouldn't be allowed while mounted anyway?) As far as using Special Hit Locations - which I think is what you were originally responding to - yeah, a foot soldier with a spear or pike probably shouldn't be limited to a Low/Leg Shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I was merely saying that a mounted fighter with [weapon] is going to have a reach/height advantage over a foot soldier with [same weapon].

This is the part I somehow failed to follow or missed -- and that, in turn, is what led me to think your world had no polearms/pikes/spears.  In this context, your remark about infantry being limited to low/leg shots now makes sense to me.

 

 

As far as using Special Hit Locations - which I think is what you were originally responding to - yeah, a foot soldier with a spear or pike probably shouldn't be limited to a Low/Leg Shot.

Agreed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...