Any Advantages to mounted combat in FH vs DND 3.5

[runescience]

Ive looked over the rules, which are fairly complex. They are scaring my newbie hero players away. One player looked at the rules, he is a cavalier/paladin type.

 

He said: "I see no advantage what so ever using these mounted combat rules" Unfortunately I cant disagree with him. Can some one throw me a line and give me some thing i can tell the player to get him excited about doing mounted combat? dnd 3.5 seems to do a nice job of it.

 

I found this posted elsewhere in the forum: Originally Posted by prestidigitator. I posted this here so that other people dont have to fish around for it and use it in their responses.

----- ----- ----

Okay. Given Steve's answer, here is my understanding of the complex part (what kind of actions the rider and mount can take; I haven't updated the pseudo-code):

 

Originally Posted by prestidigitator

Okay. Given Steve's answer, here is my understanding of the complex part (what kind of actions the rider and mount can take; I haven't updated the pseudo-code):

 

* Untrained Mount:

1. The rider must take a Half-Phase and roll to control the mount (if not, it either throws him or flees and his Phase is over; this is arbitrated with another Riding roll).

2. If he successfully controls it, the mount may not attack but may otherwise perform a Full Phase worth of actions.

3. The rider can do whatever with his other Half-Phase.

 

* Trained Mount:

1. If the mount does nothing, the rider may take a normal Full Phase (but obviously cannot move and stay mounted at the same time). Otherwise:

2. The rider must take a Half-Phase to control the mount (no roll required at this point). The mount may take its first Half-Phase.

3. If the rider wishes the mount to take a Full Phase of actions, a riding roll is required. If this involves two actions or a Full Move, the roll is made after the first Half-Phase (or after the first Half-Move).

4. The rider may do as he wishes with his other Half-Phase (but he might be screwed if he was depending on the mount making a Full Move and he failed the roll).

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Any Advantages to mounted combat in FH vs DND 3.5

 

Yeah. Good luck with that.

 

There are some upsides to the official riding rules such as extra movement and potentially being able to take more overall actions (by virtue of having the mount cover your "move" actions), but honestly the costs involved to be good at mounted combat and the extra rules fugue around it may not really balance out -- particularly if your group prefers simpler rules.

 

I will say that they do actually work, if you take the time to apply them and get used to their quirky nature. One of the PC's in my last Fantasy campaign, Fyrclian was fairly specialized in mounted combat, and some of the protagonists were too. In the scenarios where horses were involved, her skills were very obvious and advantaging -- of course the corollary to that is the action tends to follow the mainstream, so most encounters her riding skills weren't utilized. Anything outdoors with horses about however was a veritable playground for her.

 

Back on topic, if you find the official rules to be too heavy, as an alternative you can simplify the entire thing to a single Ride roll per Phase. Complex actions like move and jump or move and attack suffer a -1 or -2 penalty, as you like. Roll at the higher of the mounts DEX or the riders DEX as a non-action. Call it a wash.

 

 

The rules are there to serve your needs, not to interfere with your game.

[runescience]

Re: Any Advantages to mounted combat in FH vs DND 3.5

 

wow... your horse girl must be close to 300 pts. i didnt count just glanced.

 

You start campaigns with 75/75?

 

Well I like you simplification of the riding rules.

 

I also cracked open my old hero FH edition circa 1990 and found the text below.

 

I think hero should have stuck with it. the new stuff is rediculously complicated. I will pass your suggestion on to my mates playing. Cheers.

 

---------------------

 

 

Controlling a trained warhorse is .... The rider may move and

attack with full OCV in combat without a Riding Roll. If he wants the

horse to attack as well, he must make a Riding roll. If the character

makes the roll, he spends a half Phase controlling the horse, and

may spend the other half Phase making his own attack.

 

The horse may half move and attack with hooves or bite, or

can make a full move and run its target down with a Move By or Move Through.

 

The Lance is a particularly effective ..... A character may do a Move By or a Move Through and use

the velocity of the mount to add to the damage of a Lance attack.

 

Characters making such a lance attack should be wary of enemies

who are “Set vs. Charge” — ... wall of pikes.

 

An attack by a mounted warrior is a fearsome sight, and worth a

bonus to the PRE of the attacker. Add +2d6 if the rider is attacking

normally, and +4d6 if he is charging with Lance (unless the

defender is Set vs. Charge).

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Any Advantages to mounted combat in FH vs DND 3.5

 

wow... your horse girl must be close to 300 pts. i didnt count just glanced.

 

 

That version of her is over 500 points. Its the final version at the end of the campaign. IIRC that campaign started at 150 or maybe 175. Don't recall

 

 

You start campaigns with 75/75?

 

Kindasorta. Base 50 + 75 max personal disadvantages. Race Packages are done with a "Total Cost" method, meaning race Disads and reduced NCM reduce the actual cost of the package; all of them include NCM for 20 and Distinctive Features for at least 5. So...basically, 150 points baseline. It's all covered in a lot of detail on my site. Character Creation...and Race Package Cost

[Markdoc]

Re: Any Advantages to mounted combat in FH vs DND 3.5

 

Here's my house rules for mounted combat. They are years old, so to some extent overlap with suggestions in 5th Ed. and in other cases are different. They are certainly less complicated. It also covers Kristopher's question about funky moves in the saddle.

 

Horses are independant characters - they are capable of making attacks, movement and so on, without input from the rider. Of course they can only take actions on phases in which they get to act, meaning that a fast rider will have some "free" phases in which he can't move (but can still do other things). He *can* make a riding roll to try to give his horse a new instruction. However, to *get* the horse to do what you want requires a riding roll, and to get it to *stop* doing something requires another riding roll. Essentially, every time you want to make the horse do something in a stressful situation, that's a Riding roll. Any riding roll is a half-phase action, so you can goad your trusty steed into action and still swing your sword. In other words, to charge the enemy is a single riding roll. To goad your steed to trample somone is a riding roll. To get your steed moving in a more or less straight line is a Riding roll, and so on. Once any of these actions is started, it will continue until either the horse gets an idea to do something itself (a trained warhorse, for example is perfectly capable of getting he idea to trample or bite a foe on it's own) or the rider successfully makes a Riding roll to get it to do something else. If you should be unlucky enough to end up in combat on a horse which is not combat trained, it will most likely decide to leave every time it gets a phase, so you had better have an action handy to rein it in. Some rolls - goading a horse into a furious melee, jumping a high fence, etc may cause a -1 to -3 penalty. Persons without Riding skill can make base 8- rolls to stay on the horse, but will have to roll at a penalty to make it do what they want or more if they want to do something complex.

 

Staying on a horse - especially a rapidly moving horse - makes a person a less mobile target than if they were on their own two feet. Riders use either half their DCV or the mount's DCV, whichever is greater. This might seem a bit harsh, but historically, a rider surrounded by hostile foot was very vulnerable to being unhorsed. Keep moving! Mounted combat is not intended to be static. A rider who can and wants to, can make an acrobatics roll (or a riding roll at -3 or more) - if successful they can get their full DCV that phase, as they roll about in the saddle, drop to one side and so on. If they fail, they fall off. Like most skill actions, this is a half-phase action, so unless you are in combat already, will often preclude an attack.

 

Horse riders get a free high shot (2d6+1) for location against opponents on foot, unless using a long weapon, while attackers on foot will get a low shot (2d6+7) on mounted opponents - again unless using a long weapon. Riders retain their regular OCV if they have riding skill, otherwise suffer a -3 penalty.

 

A mounted charge can be either a move-by (normally with a weapon) or a move through (attempt to trample with the horse/dragon/war-elephant/whatever). In either case, if you use the mount's move and - if you are securely mounted - the mount's STR (this simulates the effect of mass and differentiates a charge by shock cavalry from the "ride up and hack" of skirmishing cavalry) to calculate damage. If the move-through or move-by is with a weapon, then the partial damage meted out to the attacker affects the weapon. It's pretty easy to shiver a lance like this! If it is with the mount, then of course it takes the damage and if it is stopped suddenly, the rider has to make a riding roll or go flying off.

 

When attempting to cow opponents from horseback, use the horse's PRE instead of your own if it is higher. A mounted warrior could be a fearsome sight. It also means a man mounted on a dragon is scarier than a man mounted on an ostrich.

 

cheers, Mark

[eternal_sage]

Re: Any Advantages to mounted combat in FH vs DND 3.5

 

When attempting to cow opponents from horseback, use the horse's PRE instead of your own if it is higher. A mounted warrior could be a fearsome sight. It also means a man mounted on a dragon is scarier than a man mounted on an ostrich.

 

cheers, Mark

 

that, i think, may be the most awesome image granted by the HERO boards in quite some time.....and possibly my new sig.

 

also, i like these rules. good stuff. i never liked how 3.5 DnD treats a mount as if it were simply a pair of roller skates, with no cognition of its on, and no ability to act without your (free action) Ride Check. blech. this feels a bit more like what mounted combat should be.

[mayapuppies]

Re: Any Advantages to mounted combat in FH vs DND 3.5

 

I am officially nicking off with your rules, Markdoc.

[runescience]

Re: Any Advantages to mounted combat in FH vs DND 3.5

 

Oh... for sure! great job Mark...

 

Im passing that on to the players now.

 

Maybe Steve Long can adopt it in his anxiously awaited cosmetic update to the FH rev 5 rules. HEH.

[Blue]

Re: Any Advantages to mounted combat in FH vs DND 3.5

 

Maybe Steve Long can adopt it in his anxiously awaited cosmetic update to the FH rev 5 rules. HEH.

Not gonna happen. Steve isn't making any revisions to rules. The book is being republished with typos fixed and any errata that clarifies something that was unclear. There are no rules changes being made.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Any Advantages to mounted combat in FH vs DND 3.5

 

It also means a man mounted on a dragon is scarier than a man mounted on an ostrich.

 

What do you have against Joust?

[mayapuppies]

Re: Any Advantages to mounted combat in FH vs DND 3.5

 

What do you have against Joust?

Those were flying ostriches...much scarier.