Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Should I kill the mount?


Advice

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Bit of a GM advice question. Not quite sure where to put it.

Anyway, the party I GM for chased some mounted bandits overland to a kobold cave. The party scared off the bandits' mounts, then tied up their own to investigate the cave.

Long story short, a long running enemy of the party has escaped from the kobold caves and the PCs are stuck tending to their wounded. He's going to steal the PCs' mounts; he's done this before, so they should be used to it. I'm torn, though, on whether or not he should kill the cavalier's bonded mount.

The PC's are nowhere near leveling, so the cavalier would be inconvenienced for a good long while, but I feel it would be an appropriate thing to have happen.

Thoughts?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would probably not kill the cavalier's bonded mount. Maybe I'm too nice though. I would have the PCs come across the other dead mounts, but the cavalier's bonded mount isn't there. The story basically being that since it is an exception horse, it managed to escape somehow. The players then need to track the mount down. They might show up just in time to save the bonded mount from some other peril.

This makes the cavalier appreciate that his horse is BA, while also finding a way out of the logical premise that the bad guy would kill all the mounts. The cavalier is inconvenienced for a couple encounters for not being careful enough with his mount, but not punished for 10-12 encounters or whatever while he waits to level.

That said, a cavalier is still pretty good on any horse. It isn't like you are neutralizing his whole character by taking away the bonded mount. He'll just have to get his hands on a regular warhorse for a while.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

+1
i don't think it would be 'out of bounds' to kill the cavalier's mount,
but realistically i would agree that it would work better to have the enemy steal the cav's mount and kill the rest... this lets the party recover, track down the enemy, maybe acquiring 'normal' horses in the mean-time, and possibly have a chance to recover the cav's mount... if not, or the cav's mount dies/is lost in the mean time, the cav will be closer to levelling up and can get a newer one (meanwhile they should have been able to get a 'normal' horse). that approach does'nt feel as mean as just 'executing' his mount, but it does play with letting them deal with not having all their 'toys' for a while and making do, while of course further feeding the drama they have with the recurring villain.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Stealing, and selling the mounts, sounds more bandit like in behavior.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

The only issue I have with the bandit stealing the mount is that it's a trained warhorse. It's not going to just let itself be stolen. It will fight back and may leave the bandits no choice but to kill it. Plus, it's already killed several of the bandits during previous encounters.


Could they come back and have it standing over a corpse?
I mean if it could defend itself well enough to kill this bad guy, maybe it should.
Are the other horses war trained? Have they been set in Attack or Defend mode? They'd be able to contribute damage as well.
I don't ever tie my bonded mount. He's smart and trained well enough to not wander and I set him on GUARD mode on the other horses.

At the very least let the player RP his mount during the attack. If you just have them come upon a dead horse you've nerfed the PC for 30 days and he had no say in it? That just seems like @$$. No one wants to have that.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Perhaps they find it dying, but stabilized.
Gets the point across, without too much hullabaloo.
Bandits are not going to double check to make sure it's dead.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Stealing, and selling the mounts, sounds more bandit like in behavior.

+1 presumably the cav's mount is a finer specimin that would fetch more $.

Quote:
the mount is that it's a trained warhorse. It's not going to just let itself be stolen.

OK, you previously wrote: he's done this before, so they should be used to it.

There isn't anything SUPER special about the mount, Handle Animal should still work on it, with a higher DC.
I wouldn't worry about it too much, if the other option is the bandit villain flees on whatever mount he can take control of, maybe taking along as many other mounts as he can (tied up to follow behind, etc) but killing the rest so the PCs can't pursue him, you're doing the PCs a favor by not killing off the cavalier's mount.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you don't like the bad guy stealing the mount, and you don't want to kill it, then I suggest it put up a fight before bolting. The party can track it down, or it may return on its own.
Make sure the PCs know it's alive, but it may be wounded. Small lesson for the cavalier with no serious repercussions. Might encourage him to retain a squire to watch over the party's mounts whilst they're trudging through caves and other non-horse locales.
If you want to play hardball, though, 86 the mount. Not the best option, unless the cavalier is being very . . . cavalier with his critter management responsibilities.


BltzKrg242 wrote:
At the very least let the player RP his mount during the attack.

Uh... I would say 'no' on that.

If the player left his Mount in 'Guard Mode', sure, the Bandit would have to deal with that.
If not, tough luck, Magic Jar is what lets you control other bodies remotely.
Paladin Mounts would probably be alot harder to steal though, but normal INT Cavalier Mounts seem plausible to pull off.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pawns Subscriber

Sorry for the confusion.

He's stolen all the horses *other than* the bonded mount before. Twice before, actually. The mount is currently in GUARD, so we'll have to see.

I'll see about stealing the mount. See how that plays out.


Quandary wrote:
BltzKrg242 wrote:
At the very least let the player RP his mount during the attack.

Uh... I would say 'no' on that.

If the player left his Mount in 'Guard Mode', sure, the Bandit would have to deal with that.

If he DIDN'T leave it in guard mode then he deserves a dead mount. But if he did then I was saying at least show the fight. Just saying it's dead is gimping the player for a long period with no recourse.


I personally try not to make special considerations for PC's. If they leave their horses out there, they are fair game. If you have set a precedent of the horses never being at risk, you shouldn't kill them though, because they will really be angry about it, and IMO it will be your fault.

In this case, I would consider who this bandit is. Is he intelligent enough to understand the difference between any old mount and a bonded mount? If so, I can understand why he would kill it. What this boils down to for me is this: If he attacks the horses, the horses should fight back. They are living beings, who, when mortally threatened, will respond. It's in their nature. If you're going to try and kill them, give them a fair fight. ALL of the horses would either spook and try to run away, or trample him. Where are they tied up? How much slack do they have? What is the strength check for them to break what their tied to or tied with? How long would this take? Do they stand a chance of beating this guy?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thinking outside of mechanics, a bandit wouldn't even second think about killing an enemies anything, just saying....


If it was me, i would kill all the horses, but i'm an a$%@*+&.

if you are not an a*!#~$+, then....

Have the bandit kill all the horses except for the Cav's mount. He should steal the Cav's mount, then the mount should throw the bandit at some point, and return in a session or two.

Liberty's Edge

I think he would steal ALL the horses, regardless. They are probably worth more than all the loot he makes in a year. Especially a Heavy Warhorse...

If one or two of them puts up a fight, then he would probably kill them, assuming they didn't kill him first. A horse intent on hurting you is not an easy thing to deal with. Especially a fairly intelligent one (and yes even in this world of mundane horses some are very intelligent) they will trick you. Let you get just close enough then let you have it. Move around behind a horse you don't know and you deserve whatever it does to you.

This is a win win for you. He steals all the horses, then you aren't making a special case for the Cavalier's mount. He inconveniences the party, taunting them essentially, and provides motivation for the party as well as a free reward. They have to track him down and get horses from them that they already owned...The best kind of loot from the DM's perspective. Gratifying and yet not increasing their power.


Steal them all. If for some reason the Cavalier's horse created a problem (it was left in guard mode or something, and actually managed to hit the guy) then there's nothing wrong with him stepping back and killing the mount. It's just the way things go. A villain isn't really a villain if he has the kid gloves on.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Stealing, and selling the mounts, sounds more bandit like in behavior.

+1

I would agree, especially since one could argue that the 'higher quality' of the cavalier's mount would make it a valuable commodity for the bandits.

Liberty's Edge

So you, as the DM, put the player characters (one of whom is a cavalier that is heavily nerfed when you take away his mount) in a situation where they couldn't use their mounts, and now you want to punish them because they didn't use their mounts? What do you want them to do, leave someone outside the cave to guard? (Hint: That is an absolutely horrible idea, it splits the party and is absolutely boring.) When you force the party to do something, don't penalize them for doing it, and especially, ESPECIALLY don't penalize what is already one of the weaker classes.

If I were one of your players, and you went through with this, it would happen exactly one time. From then on every time you try and engineer a situation where I couldn't keep my mount, I simply wouldn't do it, and if the rest of the group isn't full of jerks, I could probably convince them to not do it with me. (Both IC and OOC.)


You could almost say the same thing about a character's familiar or animal companion though too, couldn't you? Isn't it an assumed risk that something really bad could happen to a character's "non-leveled" cohort of some kind (I didn't know how else to phrase that....) when they drag it along on an adventure?

And the OP did say that this same sort of thing has happened to the group before; namely, horses/mounts being stolen.

I didn't get the same feeling of 'railroading' (my word, not yours) from the OP's statements, but I can see where the whole thing could make for some rather tense gaming, IC and OOC as you state.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

KILL THEM ALL, LAMASHTU WILLS IT!!!!


bigkilla wrote:
KILL THEM ALL, LAMASHTU WILLS IT!!!!

lol oh sure, take the easy way out....

Liberty's Edge

khazan wrote:
You could almost say the same thing about a character's familiar or animal companion though too, couldn't you? Isn't it an assumed risk that something really bad could happen to a character's "non-leveled" cohort of some kind (I didn't know how else to phrase that....) when they drag it along on an adventure?

First, a cavalier without his mount looses how many of his class abilities? He doesn't exactly have the option to not "drag it along," it is a huge part of his class. But putting it at risk and it dying in battle is one thing, and IMO that's fine. Heck, that's heroic. But a DM forcing pcs to abandon their mounts and then killing it with DM Fiat? No. Just no.

Quote:
And the OP did say that this same sort of thing has happened to the group before; namely, horses/mounts being stolen.

Yes, he did. Which is why I mentioned it would happen exactly once with me and then every time after that I'd say screw his story line I'm saving my horse.

Quote:
I didn't get the same feeling of 'railroading' (my word, not yours) from the OP's statements, but I can see where the whole thing could make for some rather tense gaming, IC and OOC as you state.

It is possible I read too much into it, if so, my apologies to the O.P., but I hate it when GMs use GM Fiat to screw over a character and that is very much what seems to be happening here.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Not the mounts, Lamashtu prefers you seduce them.
Be sure to get many other woodland creatures involved.
Kill one in the heat of passion.
Blood Orgy ensues.
Lamashtu is now quite pleased.


The Sweater Golem wrote:

I would probably not kill the cavalier's bonded mount. Maybe I'm too nice though. I would have the PCs come across the other dead mounts, but the cavalier's bonded mount isn't there. The story basically being that since it is an exception horse, it managed to escape somehow. The players then need to track the mount down. They might show up just in time to save the bonded mount from some other peril.

This makes the cavalier appreciate that his horse is BA, while also finding a way out of the logical premise that the bad guy would kill all the mounts. The cavalier is inconvenienced for a couple encounters for not being careful enough with his mount, but not punished for 10-12 encounters or whatever while he waits to level.

That said, a cavalier is still pretty good on any horse. It isn't like you are neutralizing his whole character by taking away the bonded mount. He'll just have to get his hands on a regular warhorse for a while.

This.

It teaches the cavalier to be more careful, gives you a nice hook as dm, and opens an oppotunity for drama.


Zed Corvin wrote:

Bit of a GM advice question. Not quite sure where to put it.

Anyway, the party I GM for chased some mounted bandits overland to a kobold cave. The party scared off the bandits' mounts, then tied up their own to investigate the cave.

Long story short, a long running enemy of the party has escaped from the kobold caves and the PCs are stuck tending to their wounded. He's going to steal the PCs' mounts; he's done this before, so they should be used to it. I'm torn, though, on whether or not he should kill the cavalier's bonded mount.

The PC's are nowhere near leveling, so the cavalier would be inconvenienced for a good long while, but I feel it would be an appropriate thing to have happen.

Thoughts?

Pretty much purely a”now I will mess with the players because that is fun for me” –move.

A warhorse is a temperamental beast, and bounded mounts even more so; it would not simply follow along with a stranger that pops up. Not would any horse just happily stand around and let its throat be slit, so if someone wants to kill it, that one needs to fight it. Looking at it from a gaming perspective an animal companies is though enough that it is highly unlikely to be killed without at least the opportunity to run away first.
Also, look at it from the bandits perspective, he have no idea if the party is one round or one hour away from him and considering how loud a horse can scream (if he does attack the players should get a perception check to hear it in the cave) it is quite likely that the noise will alert the adventures in the cave. If he simply sneaks off no one will be looking for him while trying for the horses are a high-risk venture that will bring a chase down on him.

Horses are not cars, they can be very particular about who they allow themselves to be handle by.

From a more general perspective I would advice against any such line of action, especially when it seems you make routine out of it.
The Players have left a capable guardian (the AC) that is usually tough enough to be a real deterrent for most dangers. This should be more then enough for most occasions.
Ask yourself; what could the players reasonably have done to protect the horses even more then they did?

If you start to steal and/or destroy the players possession as soon as they let it out if their sight (despite the fact that they have made sure it is guarded) you will end up with players that never even go to the toilet without all their possession with them, and when you get that sort of feeling around the table it is not fun for anyone.
If the players start to get a felling that you are a sadistic prick whose main source of fun is screwing with them, it can take YEARS to work that reputation off, if ever.


I don't think killing the cavalier's mount is a very good idea.

After the third time you pulled something like this it's likely your PC's, especially the cavalier, will just be irritated at it. Once or twice is fine but after a while it just gets old. That or they'll become paranoid about their possessions and take their horses where ever they go, refusing to ever leave them unattended.

Also, I'd don't how you run your game but for me there is a sort of unwritten rule that you don't do stuff like kill familiars or animal companions "off screen".


Zed Corvin wrote:

Long story short, a long running enemy of the party has escaped from the kobold caves and the PCs are stuck tending to their wounded. He's going to steal the PCs' mounts; he's done this before, so they should be used to it. I'm torn, though, on whether or not he should kill the cavalier's bonded mount.

The PC's are nowhere near leveling, so the cavalier would be inconvenienced for a good long while, but I feel it would be an appropriate thing to have happen.

Thoughts?

If you are ready for that Cavalier to kill that bad guy, and wrap up the villains storyline than yes. The cavalier will be very upset with you, although he'll rip the bad guy a new one for revenge. It could offer fun roleplay for both of you, but you are taking his class feature away. I would assume the mount is the Cavaliers best friend, because it would be mine. So the idea of losing your best friend could be fun to watch where the player takes it.

or

You could allow the villain to kill the other mounts, and sense the cavalier's mount is more intelligent than a normal mount it could escape while the other mounts are getting killed.

BltzKrg242 wrote:
If he DIDN'T leave it in guard mode then he deserves a dead mount. But if he did then I was saying at least show the fight. Just saying it's dead is gimping the player for a long period with no recourse.

Not a robot or a dog, you don't just turn guard on and off. Even if he didn't say Guard than it's still going to be on guard, because I'm sure the horse doesn't want to get killed.


lol, how's this for a plot twist? Have the Cavalier's mount kill the would-be-thief.

Shadow Lodge

the mount is not going to stand there and let the guy kill it. A warhorse, especially an animal companion, is a trained living weapon in its own right. If the horse were to withdraw with its superior movement i doubt your npc could catch it.

Shadow Lodge

Remember, shoot the man, not the horse. A dead horse is cover; a live horse is a great pile of panic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zed Corvin wrote:

Bit of a GM advice question. Not quite sure where to put it.

He's going to steal the PCs' mounts; he's done this before, so they should be used to it. I'm torn, though, on whether or not he should kill the cavalier's bonded mount.

Thoughts?

I have a different DM philosophy here, so please excuse if it comes off askew.

Don't dictate results, rather simply portray the NPCs and let the dice determine the results.

If the NPC would try to steal the horses, then he tries to do so. Have that play out just as if one of your players was playing the NPC and said he wanted to do this.

Personally, I'd rather a neutral DM than one that's looking to 'tell a story' or is looking for certain results. My take on it is that I can go read a book that they wrote rather than play D&D if they want to be telling their story. I'd like to be playing mine.

Don't base your NPC's decisions on the players. And don't base the results on your desires.

I still can recall from well over 20 years ago, my character deciding that we were not going to do the obvious step X and that DM calmly and so smoothly that no one else even noticed picked up a full legal pad and placed it aside, continuing on as if nothing untoward had happened. The pad was filled with things that he had prepared, but it wasn't about that it was about the PCs and what they were doing. Now, being the DM that he was he simply let the situations that he had contrived play out without the PCs coming along and we saw the aftermath later on, but that's how the cards fall.

-James


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stat up the warhorses, including the bonded mounts, and say "OK, guys, so while your PCs are resting, here's what's happening above ground" and hand out mini character sheets for the horses. Just to make it fair, give the non bonded mounts each some kind of bonus feat so they have something to do other than just attack with hooves. Give one, the beefy one that's been carrying the barbarian perhaps, power attack. Give another Improved bull rush to suggest this is a clever horse who likes to use its weight to body slam opponents around. Give one punishing kick perhaps. :) Sometimes you just want to say screw the rules, let's have some fun.

Scarab Sages

I'm going to tackle this from a Drama/Story perspective. I see two obvious possibilities:

1) Comedy: The thief steals all the horses along with any gear the party left on them. He sells the goods and animals piecemeal as he goes along, and as the party moves among the farms and villages on their way back to wherever, they see other people with their stuff/animals. "Hey, that's my saddle!! Hey, that's my mess kit!! Hey, that's my horse!!" The punchline is when the cavalier comes across his noble warhorse pulling a plow or a cartful of manure or something - cue outrage from the cavalier. Alternately, the horse thief can end up trying to keep the cavalier's warhorse for himself, either because he can't find a buyer for it or else he just appreciates good horseflesh. Then when the cavalier catches up to the thief, he can take sweet revenge by ordering his obedient horse to throw its rider.

2) Tragedy/Drama: The thief steals all the horses, but the cavalier's horse doesn't go quietly and is horribly wounded. When the party finds the animal, it is on the cusp of death. Magical healing can possibly save the animal's life if applied quickly and with enough force, but even so this great beast will be permanently lame and will never fight again. Cue the plaintive string orchestra. And the sudden, torrential rain. And the revenge plot. The thief is part of a guild or mob, and the party has to cut a bloody swath through the banditos including their boss, until the Cavalier finally gets the thief alone in a back room with no hope of escape.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If it really is only one person, dealing with a bunch of horses like that is rather unwieldy. Unless he's got a pretty good handle animal, stealing them wouldn't be possible (other than one to use as his own mount), and killing them could take a while, and so would depend on how closely he thought the PCs were behind him.

Another possibility though, is for him to put a surprise in their gear. Poison in their food. (Or in the animal feed.) A magical tracking device. Cursed items. Or just sabotaging their gear in general (nicking a rope so that it breaks later when they try to use it).

There's more than one way to slow down his pursuers.

Liberty's Edge

How does the thief know to treat the bonded mount differently than the other horses? It isn't as though the bonded mount has a label on it that says "bonded mount." PCs don't know about classes. They don't know class abilities. They know that some guys do some stuff.

The bonded mount is an animal that appears to the outside world like any other animal of its type. Mounts are valuable animals; it seems more likely that he would try to steal them, and he may or may not be successful at it. Some thieves might destroy what they can't take, others might not...it depends on the thief, his personality, and his motivation.

Echo the sentiments elsewhere that you need to be aware how the NPC actions will be perceived by the PCs. I personally don't find games where the PCs become paranoid the players spend an hour each time figuring out how they are going to attempt to protect against every possible GM ex machina that is thrown their way, particularly since, in the hand of some GMs, they just bring in the exact NPC ally to overcome their precautions.


Zed Corvin wrote:
The only issue I have with the bandit stealing the mount is that it's a trained warhorse. It's not going to just let itself be stolen. It will fight back and may leave the bandits no choice but to kill it. Plus, it's already killed several of the bandits during previous encounters.

So it is exceptionally valuable. The bandits might have geared up specifically to steal such an animal. They might have a guy to UMD a druid spell scroll to make it possible. Charm, dominate, hold, etc...


Sevorev wrote:
lol, how's this for a plot twist? Have the Cavalier's mount kill the would-be-thief.

This. Seriously. If the party's horses are combat trained then they will defend themselves. Period. The thief is looking at a steep CR encounter with a bunch of horses and the Cavalier's animal companion.

If a DM ever told me some guy just "steals" the party's horses, I'd say "bull, you're telling me one guy fought down 5 horses all by himself?"


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Zed Corvin wrote:
The only issue I have with the bandit stealing the mount is that it's a trained warhorse. It's not going to just let itself be stolen. It will fight back and may leave the bandits no choice but to kill it. Plus, it's already killed several of the bandits during previous encounters.
So it is exceptionally valuable. The bandits might have geared up specifically to steal such an animal. They might have a guy to UMD a druid spell scroll to make it possible. Charm, dominate, hold, etc...

That is just as likely as a tree falling over killing all the horses or a wandering tribe of giants going past and stealing the horses. From the perspective of a player it amounts to the same thing; what sort of justification the GM choose is rather irrelevant.

As the GM makes the world, it can always make up justifications for precisely anything, so that is not really the issue.
The issue is really if the GM should take recourse away from the players without them being able to do anything about it.


What level ranges are we talking about anyways?

I mean if it's a level 2 bandit and the cavalier's horse comes from a level 8 cavalier then the bandit is dead.

If it's a level 4 bandit and the cavalier is level 6 it's dicey for him, where if the bandit is level 6 and the cavalier is 4 then yeah he can probably steal it... but it's going to offer problems the whole time.

And handling multiple horses all by oneself isn't the easiest task in the world when they are getting along with you, when one of them is out for blood? Forget it.


Korpen wrote:


As the GM makes the world, it can always make up justifications for precisely anything, so that is not really the issue.
The issue is really if the GM should take recourse away from the players without them being able to do anything about it.

No, it really is the issue.

If the DM is looking to demand a plot then he should (imho) be writing a story and not calling it D&D.

A DM needs the players to trust him, and fiat erodes that.

-James


Another approach, one that doesn't permanently disable or hinder anybody, is to have the villain (assuming a competent Handle Animals bonus) steal a random horse, and scatter the rest. Cut the reigns and smack the horse on the rump. Then make off with one of them.

If he has time, maybe rummage through saddle packs, or sabotage riding equipment, but if not, then scatter and skedaddle.

The party would be faced with two conundrums, the first being to track down the mounts, and determine which set of tracks bore the horse their, then chase down said horse theif.

This would give a character with some tracking skills a chance to shine and take a minute of limelight for a relatively unused skill. And give the villain a chance to make good his escape and maybe find a hole to hide in, or to summon allies.

All while only mildly inconveniencing the group, and not actually gimping a class ability.

Also, as a side note, I'd totally have the climax fight scene be a horseback chase and fight, while the thief is joined by a few fresh comrades, or perhaps has a hidden knack for mounted combat.


If these horses are war-trained they should be extremely difficult to handle for ANYONE other than their rider or the person who "broke" it (made it ride able). They absolutely will bite and kick/trample those they do not trust... war horses weren't really broken like normal riding horses were, they wanted those horses to have a wild streak, be aggressive, and be difficult to dissuade from its course of action. That plus training to fight instead of flee meant they were extremely dangerous, and once they were no longer needed within a society were often put down instead of attempting to convert them to working horses. If they were war-trained they will probably fight, and not obey at all... if they are riding horses they will probably do what he wants.

Liberty's Edge

All of the conversation about the nature of warhorses in the real world and how that relates to the game world is fine. If you go in for that style of play, enjoy.

That said, within the game, you can buy a warhorse. You don't have to break it or personally train it. Handle Animal gives anyone the ability to control a trained animal merely by making the appropriate DC skill check.

Sczarni

If we're worried about the horses putting up a fight, there's always Drow Poison to knock them unconscious. Granted you'd need several gallons of it to take out a herd of warhorses, though.

Having the mount horsenapped for a few encounters would be a good adventure hook, as well as a way for the BBEG to distract the heroes while he advances his evil plan. It would also force the cavalier to rethink his fighting tactics for a little while and really wrap his head around what it means to lose the mount. But give the cavalier the opportunity to look his steed's kidnapper in the eye and heroically rescue his companion. If you think killing the mount would be "in character" for the enemies, then set up an encounter where the death of the mount is a distinct possibility but not a given. That way the cavalier gets to feel like he had some control over whether or not he loses his mount.

Whatever you do, do NOT kill off the mount off-screen.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I should say this, because the PCs may try the same trick.

Killing an animal is not an evil act.


Howie23 wrote:


That said, within the game, you can buy a warhorse. You don't have to break it or personally train it. Handle Animal gives anyone the ability to control a trained animal merely by making the appropriate DC skill check.

Really, so if I'm facing a mounted character I can use handle animal to make the mount come to me as a move action?

Now a group of animals hobbled and left without food? That's a different situation, but that's introducing that real world view again.

But regardless on that, it should not be by fiat or avoided because it would be annoying to the players. It should be what the NPC would try to do and whether or not he was successful at doing it.

-James

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:
Howie23 wrote:


That said, within the game, you can buy a warhorse. You don't have to break it or personally train it. Handle Animal gives anyone the ability to control a trained animal merely by making the appropriate DC skill check.

Really, so if I'm facing a mounted character I can use handle animal to make the mount come to me as a move action?

Hi James, this is headed toward a good-sized side discussion, so I've started a thread in the Rules forum, here.


Is this ONE dude bad enough to defeat a bunch of warhorses led by a bonded mount? I had a cav player, and his mount was pretty darn powerful. Add 2-5 more warhorses, and you have a pretty terrifying encounter.

I know that he would call bs if I said some dude took out his mount without much ado.

Shadow Lodge

satern wrote:


+

If we're worried about the horses putting up a fight, there's always Drow Poison to knock them unconscious.

how exactly do you move the horses once they;re unconscious?

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Should I kill the mount? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.