A mounted warrior against a group of non-mounted enemies can be devastating (charge, lance with charge,higher ground bonuses, overruns, etc). It would be sound tactics to attack a mounted warrior's horse to take away the cavalry superiority it provides.
If the player is charging, have an enemy set vs charge in front of the archers, etc to protect them. When the opponent who is set misses because of that Mounted Combat Feat, the player will be all smiles (especially when he sees how much damage that set vs charge can do to his mount if it does hit).
Attacking a mount (and healers) of your opposing force isn't only recommended, it makes sound tactical sense. Let him keep the feat and he will be happy when those enemies trying to bring him to ground are thwarted!
I usually have NPCs attack the horse, It's *usually* easier to hit. Although I did have a cavalier who built her horse so heavily that it had the best AC in the group (and actually ended up chasing a BBEG off because the BBEG couldn't hit it and had used up all his hexes and spells). It had something like a 30 AC at level 5 or 6.
1. Mounted Combat is a requirement for Spirited Charge and Ride-by Attack. It's not a wasted feat.
2. Not all enemies will target a mount, nor will all targets automatically target the rider. Goblins, for instance, will generally attack the horse due to racial hatred as they may view it as a bigger threat than the rider.
I'm not a big fan of attaacking pets myself, I'd find the rider to be a bigger threat anyway. That said, throwing him a bone and attacking the horse now and then might not hurt.
Allowing him to trade it out isn't awful either, but I wouldn't push it on him. That might feel a little too insulting.
Another thing I tend to do is, treat the rider and horse as one 'target' then roll random to see which one got targeted by an attack.
This is usually for people firing ranged attacks. To me, it's less likely you're going to specifically aim at the rider or horse with a bow, and just generally try to hit 'the horse and rider' and not care which one get's a shaft.
So I usually roll a d10 and 1-7 is horse, 8-10 is rider. Then apply the attack against whichever one hit (the horse being the higher number due to it making up more of the combo).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the attacker. If they want to keep the horse as spoils later, they should be attacking the cavalier in order to preserve the horse. If they want the prestige of having gone mano-a-mano with the cavalier, they'll attack the cavalier. If they're hungry or a creature that preys on horses, they'll probably attack the horse. If they're getting their asses kicked by the mounted knight because he's mounted, they'll attack the horse. If they want to reduce the knight's mobility, they'll attack the horse.
For the most part, there's no single right answer to attacking the horse or the man. There's just differing motivations and circumstances. One thing to keep in mind - that horse is going to be a weak point for the cavalier fairly soon (if not already). Once he has advanced mounted combat feats, being unhorsed neutralizes them until he can get a horse under him again. And that horse will be squishier than the cavalier by AC and hit points. That cavalier is well advised to have back-up mounts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. You are the dm and thus contractually obligated to hate and murder all horses. Horse death is required. No exceptions.
1. Mounted Combat is a requirement for Spirited Charge and Ride-by Attack. It's not a wasted feat.
2. Not all enemies will target a mount, nor will all targets automatically target the rider. Goblins, for instance, will generally attack the horse due to racial hatred as they may view it as a bigger threat than the rider.
At the same time, I'm not really partial to the idea of attacking an animal companion at all for the same reason that I don't really like the idea of having one at all. It's easy to boost the surviveability of a player character, but much harder to do so for an animal companion. They become much easier to target and kill compared to their masters, and as enemies get stronger, they become much more likely to die in combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anything the PC sends into combat is fair game to be murderized.
This goes for mounts, henchmen, animal companions, eidolon(s?), familiars, or whatever.
If a Player wants it safe from harm they need to figure out how to keep it out of harms way.
So definately- if he rides Bob the Horse into combat then you should factor Bob into who gets hit during the fight.
-S
|
Anything the PC sends into combat is fair game to be murderized.
This goes for mounts, henchmen, animal companions, eidolon(s?), familiars, or whatever.
If a Player wants it safe from harm they need to figure out how to keep it out of harms way.
So definately- if he rides Bob the Horse into combat then you should factor Bob into who gets hit during the fight.
-S
The player wants the horse to be targeted because he has a way to mitigate that.
The question is not whether the opponents are allowed to target the horse, but whether they should.
I usually have NPCs attack the horse, It's *usually* easier to hit. Although I did have a cavalier who built her horse so heavily that it had the best AC in the group (and actually ended up chasing a BBEG off because the BBEG couldn't hit it and had used up all his hexes and spells). It had something like a 30 AC at level 5 or 6.
Assuming the PC invested the 1st, 2nd, and 5th level feats into light, medium, and dodge, and almost all of the PC's wealth, at 6th level that would be ...
10
+8 natural armor bonus
+3 Dexterity (assuming 4th level increase into Dex)
+9 armor bonus (+3 Steel Lamellar armor outfitted for a large unusual creature, 9750 gp)
+1 dodge bonus (dodge feat instead of heavy armor proficiency)
= 31 AC (27 AC flat-footed, 14 AC touch)
Can horses use magic items (i.e. ring of protection)? I would imagine not, but I don't think I've ever read that they can't ...
Regardless, 31 AC would be ridiculous for a horse at 6th level.
I agree with Swashbucklersdc and Bill Dunn--it depends on the situation and the enemy.
As already mentioned, goblins are going to be attacking that horse, because they hate and fear horses. Also, goblins are kind of stupid, for the most part, and won't realize that it's the guy ON the horse that's really doing damage to them.
Dropping mounted warriors' mounts is always a very effective tactic, although more so IRL than in Pathfinder. Especially for archers, it's kind of a big deal. That mount makes the difference between the cavalier charging your position this round and slaughtering all of you, and that cavalier having to slough it up to you like a regular schmoe, except he's taken a topple onto the ground in his heavy armor (what a mook!).
In melee combat, it's hard to say. There's a case for taking out the horse, as it'll cause the rider to fall and remove his height advantage, but at the same time that rider is the one (generally speaking) that's wreaking havoc, not the horse.
In full mounted combat, it's generally dishonorable to strike the opponent's mount. If he's fighting bandits or the like, they may well employ that tactic to gain an advantage; if it's an enemy knight or cavalier, they probably wouldn't. It all depends.
As A GM who has a cavalier in his game, yes, you should sometimes target the mount, unless it makes more sense not too. I typically target the rider after the bad guys figure out that the mount is actually pretty hard to hit. And FYI, be prepared to have the cavalier destroy encounters outside where he can charge around on his mount (as he should!). Make sure to challenge him by making him dungeon explore sometimes to let the rest of the party shine too. Also hostling armor is an interesting twist, maybe don’t tell him about it and see if he finds it. Also, Archers and Swarms are a GMs friend, use em (just not too much). Also lance cavalier on a flying mount is even better at destroying outdoor encounters.
As other have said, at different points it may be optimal to attack the horse or rider in particular. In general, I think of the rider as the more dangerous of the two and I would seek to neutralize him. However, this means in order for it to be effective you have to try and kill the horse and can't pull a punch when it gets close. Killing the horse kills a big part of the cavalier's bonus, which is an effective strategy. Ultimately, unless you want to really try killing the horse and possibly ruining the cavalier's day, stick with attacking the cavalier.
If you're only willing to deal damage to the horse as a show until it gets close to dead or unconcious then it's a metagaming mindset.
Anything the PC sends into combat is fair game to be murderized.
This goes for mounts, henchmen, animal companions, eidolon(s?), familiars, or whatever.
If a Player wants it safe from harm they need to figure out how to keep it out of harms way.
So definately- if he rides Bob the Horse into combat then you should factor Bob into who gets hit during the fight.
-S
The player wants the horse to be targeted because he has a way to mitigate that.
The question is not whether the opponents are allowed to target the horse, but whether they should.
The answer remains the same. Absent the DM metagaming (but he can just negate an attack, why bother with the horse?) why wouldn't an NPC target the horse rather than the rider? Bring the guy down to the ground, negate the attacks of the (presumably) squishier horse. Now once they do attack it and find their attacks to be ineffective (due to the feat and/or high AC) then they may stop.. but if they never attack it because the DM knows they won't hit it then he's just metagaming and that needs to stop. :)
-S
|
|
The answer remains the same. Absent the DM metagaming (but he can just negate an attack, why bother with the horse?) why wouldn't an NPC target the horse rather than the rider? Bring the guy down to the ground, negate the attacks of the (presumably) squishier horse. Now once they do attack it and find their attacks to be ineffective (due to the feat and/or high AC) then they may stop.. but if they never attack it because the DM knows they won't hit it then he's just metagaming and that needs to stop. :)-S
"Maybe send the first attack at the horse, if it's negated, change to the rider thereafter."
My first response in this thread was pretty much what you just said.
The answer remains the same. Absent the DM metagaming (but he can just negate an attack, why bother with the horse?) why wouldn't an NPC target the horse rather than the rider?
As said above, there can be many reasons.
- The rider is the more dangerous target, focusing on it makes sense. When the PC encounters riding enemies, they often go for the riders, at least in my games. It's more efficient in many cases.- The enemies want to keep the horse - this would be very common at lower levels, where a horse is quite a big deal of loot for the NPC's. A heavy warhorse is 300gp, split between two bandits it's enough to push their wealth up a whole level. Even if they don't care about the wealth, they might care about the food and a live horse will last better and be easier to move than a heavy one.
Don't forget things like Mounted Shield, Bodyguard, Order of the Dragon, and Helpful Halfling. There's a lot that cavaliers can do to pump up their mount's defenses, if they build for it.
Regardless, 31 AC would be ridiculous for a horse at 6th level.
And to OP, occasionally target the horse when you think the bad guys would want to do so. Don't feel bad and don't be surprised if the rider elects to not use his feat.
Generally the Cavaliers will save that negation chance for a big-hitting enemy or a touch attack, and if a goblin gets lucky with a spear... so be it.
When I played a dedicated mounted combat druid... my GM gave up on attacking my mount, until he ambushed us with a roper. (anti-mount grudge monster)
|
I tend to have thinking foes target the rider, many of them will know or assume that once he's down the horse is likely to either run off or remain at his side and defend him, thus taking it out of the fight if they simply move away. Unintelligent creatures and especially animals I tend to have attack the horse, unintelligent simply because its probably the first thing they come into contact with, animals because for many of them a horse will register as prey far more than a human will.
|
|
Now here's the thing:
]In general I hadn't really planned on attacking the horse, unless they were beset by LOTS of foes who really wanted to cripple the party.
.
In the Middle Ages, when it was normal to fight with sword and bow, they developed a sword called a Flambarge. It was designed specifically to stop a charging horse and unseat the rider. The rider was normally a knight in full plate. when he hit the ground then all the footmen would run over with Maces and destroy the Knight.
The cavalier in our game would flat go crazy if his horse died. He like riding though town on his, lance at the ready. Of course, he has used the lance to take out thugs hiding on single story rooftops.
Just a quick thought. Hope it helps.
Just make sure that if you start attacking the horse be sure to attack it more than once per round from time to time. Because while not attacking it at all might be seen as bad because it seems as he wasted a feat just attacking the horse once per turn (which he can try to negate) is bad because it makes the feat stronger than it should be.
1. Mounted Combat is a requirement for Spirited Charge and Ride-by Attack. It's not a wasted feat.
2. Not all enemies will target a mount, nor will all targets automatically target the rider. Goblins, for instance, will generally attack the horse due to racial hatred as they may view it as a bigger threat than the rider.
The first point I don't agree with. While it is a road to other feats, it does not mean it should not have any meaning. It's still a feat and just because you need it to progress in a feat chain does not mean it should have no impact at all.
You might aswell switch it out and say it requires skill focus(craft: Crap Statue) and when the player takes it say that you can't craft statues out of crap, but you can take the next feat that will give you something nice.
My point was that the feat is not wasted if situations come up such that the horse is a non-target for a session or two due to the capacity of enemies. The player was hoping for an instant return on his feat choice and it didn't happen. That can easily be resolved long-term, but having a GM guilt trip because of the results is not unheard of for this sort of thing.
Another similar situation to consider is if a player takes Craft Wonderous Item, but the party is racing against a hard clock (ex. in 3 days, X happens). Sure, the player may not be able to do much crafting in that time, but it's probably not a wasted feat in the long run. There just needs to be long-term opportunities.
It's a matter of applying the Goldman-Sachs motto: Long-term greedy. Not everything in life is an instant return on investment.
Also, does the feat feel any less wasted if the player always rolls horribly on his Ride checks and never actually negates an attack? That makes the feat functionally worthless, as well.
@Serisan, I actually hadn't considered that mounted combat was a pre-requisite for other feats, thanks :)
Glad I could help.
Put it this way. Horses make good eats. Lots of it. The whole tribe can feast. Armored cavaliers not so much. They are all sinew and bones. Which would I rather bring down?
First I try to rationalize if there is some reason for a particular opponent to attack one or the other.
- The snake is likely to attack the horse that might step on it. Not so much the rider on top of the horse.
- The trap door spider would get a bigger meal from the horse.
- The kobolds are just intelligent enough to realize a mounted man is more dangerous and set a line to either break the horses ankles or catch the rider and pull him off the horse.
- The samurai might consider attacking the horse to be dishonorable.
- The rogue might leave the horse alone since a mounted guy can't chase him into the sewers.
- Ogre hits what ever is closest (might be horse) or whatever hurt it most (probably rider).
If there is no way to do that, I roll with half the chance for a pet as for a PC or summoned creature.
The crazy ghost that kills any living thing at random, ex: roll d8.
1-2 PC A
3 PC A's familiar
4-5 PC A's summoned bear
6-7 PC B
8 PC B's mount
The mounts or other pets get attacked often enough for protecting them to be worth while, but not constantly.
Well what are Horsechoppers for if not to chop Horses.
Might point out besides the Horsechopper, there are several weapons like the Bill and Glaive Guisarme designed to pull riders off their horses..
For pure tactical sense, shooting at the mount while at range is a good idea as if you disable the mount, the rider is going to have to pick himself off the ground and walk into battle , but once up close the rider is more dangerous.
|
|
Well what are Horsechoppers for if not to chop Horses.
Might point out besides the Horsechopper, there are several weapons like the Bill and Glaive Guisarme designed to pull riders off their horses..
For pure tactical sense, shooting at the mount while at range is a good idea as if you disable the mount, the rider is going to have to pick himself off the ground and walk into battle , but once up close the rider is more dangerous.
And the mount is a lot larger target.
Trained horses are very expensive, and worth a fair bit as loot. Some critters might not care, but that's a decent reason to target the rider and spare the horse.
Edit: Whoops! I see that Ilja beat me to it.
War trained horses tend to be rather unpleasant to catch unharmed after their riders are downed because they're vicious, this would be even more true of cavalier horses.Trained horses are very expensive, and worth a fair bit as loot. Some critters might not care, but that's a decent reason to target the rider and spare the horse.
Edit: Whoops! I see that Ilja beat me to it.
True, but there would still be people that would try.
|
I'm not a big fan of attaacking pets myself, I'd find the rider to be a bigger threat anyway. That said, throwing him a bone and attacking the horse now and then might not hurt.
Allowing him to trade it out isn't awful either, but I wouldn't push it on him. That might feel a little too insulting.
When dealing with a heavily armored fighter on a lightly armored mount, the mount is the weak link.
Most intelligent opponents will assume such until proven otherwise. Unintelligent opponents will just attack whatever is closest/easiest/hurt them the most.
|
While this has pretty much already been addressed, mounted combat is definitely not a wasted feat as it is step one in a feat tree that your cavalier will definitely want to progress through.
I play a Halfling cavalier riding a dog, and my GM as a default says that he is hitting the rider. Unless he specifies that the attack is against my mount, it is against my AC. That said, my own AC and my mount's AC are very similar. When fighting certain enemies, Goblins, for example, they will almost exclusively attack my mount.
I would say that I have the opportunity to negate an attack with a ride check frequently enough to make mounted combat worth it. That's not to mention the fact that it allowed for me to take ride-by attack and spirited charge, which has basically made me a little juggernaut of charging pain! :)