Has anyone found a way to Mount a horse faster than a Standard Action - ala Quick Mount via a Ride check in 3rd Edition?
Thanks.
There isn't one since there is no Ride skill anymore. But this sounds like an excellent place to create a new feat.
I know there are some feats or race/class abilities that change a standard action into a minor action, so I don't see why a "Quick Mount" feat could not be created for this.
There isn't one since there is no Ride skill anymore. But this sounds like an excellent place to create a new feat.
I know there are some feats or race/class abilities that change a standard action into a minor action, so I don't see why a "Quick Mount" feat could not be created for this.
That's exactly what I was thinking. A feat that made it quicker to mount.
I may homebrew this rule, do you think it'd be fairer to say mounting becomes a Move or a Minor action as you suggested?
|
I may homebrew this rule, do you think it'd be fairer to say mounting becomes a Move or a Minor action as you suggested?
I'd go with a minor. "Move equivilent" abilities are rare or nonexistant in 4E and I'd prefer to keep it that way. Move actions should be for moving and nothing else, which is why minors exist. Additionally, it avoids the confusion of "So, I use my move to mount the horse, but doesn't the horse have a move action?"
I'd go with a minor. "Move equivilent" abilities are rare or nonexistant in 4E and I'd prefer to keep it that way. Move actions should be for moving and nothing else, which is why minors exist. Additionally, it avoids the confusion of "So, I use my move to mount the horse, but doesn't the horse have a move action?"
You are right and I agree completely. Thanks for the insight.
I would allow the use of Acrobatics to let you hop on a mount as a move action (say, DC 15). I dont think that a Quick Mount feat would be useful enough by itself, as I see most cases having a character start combat already mounted.
I would allow the use of Acrobatics to let you hop on a mount as a move action (say, DC 15). I dont think that a Quick Mount feat would be useful enough by itself, as I see most cases having a character start combat already mounted.
It's funny you say that because in our session last night, my Ranger with the Mounted Combat feat was sitting around a campfire when they were ambushed by kobolds. I wanted to have him get on his mount, but it was either use a Standard Action to do that... Or, use a Standard Action to try and kill, defend, or heal his comrades. He didn't get on his mount until 3 rounds before the battle ended in a desperate measure to GET AWAY. Ha!
So, I have to respectfully disagree. I would take a feat that let me Fast Mount. But, using Athletics seems like a decent alternative...
I would allow the use of Acrobatics to let you hop on a mount as a move action (say, DC 15). I dont think that a Quick Mount feat would be useful enough by itself, as I see most cases having a character start combat already mounted.
I like this approach.
I would say offer both! A feat to make it minor, and also allow the Acrobatics check DC 15 to pull it off as a move action.
It may appeal to more PC's that way.
I would say offer both! A feat to make it minor, and also allow the Acrobatics check DC 15 to pull it off as a move action.
It may appeal to more PC's that way.
Do you think DC 15 is high enough? I think Fast Mount was a DC 20 in 3.5 edition...
Definately 15. They list that as the base DC, and recommend you only boost it up if the stunt is overly complex. Since you are basically just trying to do something a little bit faster (ie. standard action to a move action) I'd say 15 is plenty.
If the PC wanted to reduce it to a minor action, I would say at least 20, and maybe even a free action as a 25 or 30?
|
I haven't looked at 4E but I will be joining a campaign in about a month(long story) any way I expect this campaign to be combat light but the group will be mounted which will lead to mounted combat. Could you guys tell me about how mounted combat is handled without a Ride skill? What I can expect, is it simple? is it fast?
And we get to the threshold of why a more dumbed down and simpler game does NOT make a good Tabletop RPG for the experienced. 4E couldn't even cover mounted combat properly. What a shame.
Hm, wow, it seems looking at my 3E book, so much has been covered. Wow. More classes and spells are, too, and more types of armor! How interesting and fun! Why would anyone want to switch to a game with LESS and only to find themselves getting stuck when they truly did need the stats to brigandine armor or half plate? (yes, I am also aiming at why
Staying on topic, I'd recommend the OP to just house rule the mounted combat issue, since 4E is already turning out to be the Manhattan Project of house rules, more so than 1E and 2E ever was. (glad 3E saw a minimal amount of that, least in my games)
And we get to the threshold of why a more dumbed down and simpler game does NOT make a good Tabletop RPG for the experienced. 4E couldn't even cover mounted combat properly. What a shame.
Hm, wow, it seems looking at my 3E book, so much has been covered. Wow. More classes and spells are, too, and more types of armor! How interesting and fun! Why would anyone want to switch to a game with LESS and only to find themselves getting stuck when they truly did need the stats to brigandine armor or half plate? (yes, I am also aiming at why
Staying on topic, I'd recommend the OP to just house rule the mounted combat issue, since 4E is already turning out to be the Manhattan Project of house rules, more so than 1E and 2E ever was. (glad 3E saw a minimal amount of that, least in my games)
Actually, other than this minor issue, I think the mounted combat rules in 4th Edition are FAR superior to 3rd Edition rules.
To the fella who asked about how mounted combat works, basically everyone is considered to have a basic skill in riding a horse. There is a mounted combat feat which allows you to use the mounts special abilities (kick, trample and charge for a warhorse) and in addition allows the mount to use some of your skills instead of its.
Also, you and your mount share actions in a round. You get a standard, move, minor, and free action. You are free to split those up among yourself and your mount during your turn. So, for example, your mount could move, you make an attack, a minor and a free action.
That's the jist of it. I love it. It's simple and intuitive. Other than the "fast mount" issue - which for all intents and purposes can be easily done with a skill or ability check or a house ruled feat - I have had no issues with mounts.
And we get to the threshold of why a more dumbed down and simpler game does NOT make a good Tabletop RPG for the experienced. 4E couldn't even cover mounted combat properly. What a shame.
I am unsure of how you make the jump from the lack of a rule around fast mounting to how 4e "couldn't even cover mounted combat properly"?
Well, I want to flight from my saddle while sitting backwards and whistling a battle tune with my eyes closed. What? No rule for that? Well I guess they really didn't cover mounted combat, did they?
As an earlier poster mentioned, there is a section on how to handle situations that don't have a specific rule. Most of it revolves around applying some common sense. They want to leap onto their saddle quickly? Sounds like Acrobatics to me. Ok...now for a DC...well it is not the different than mounting, just quicker...shouldn't be too difficult, but it's not something done normally. Let's choose the Medium level and set the DC at 15. Take it a bit further and you could give the PC a +2 if they are actually trained in Acrobatics.
Setting up specific rules for situations like this is what made Grappling in 3.5 such a difficult thing to master. I, for one, would rather not go down that road again.
Setting up specific rules for situations like this is what made Grappling in 3.5 such a difficult thing to master. I, for one, would rather not go down that road again.
Indeed!
And we get to the threshold of why a more dumbed down and simpler game does NOT make a good Tabletop RPG for the experienced. 4E couldn't even cover mounted combat properly. What a shame.
Hm, wow, it seems looking at my 3E book, so much has been covered. Wow. More classes and spells are, too, and more types of armor! How interesting and fun! Why would anyone want to switch to a game with LESS and only to find themselves getting stuck when they truly did need the stats to brigandine armor or half plate? (yes, I am also aiming at why
Staying on topic, I'd recommend the OP to just house rule the mounted combat issue, since 4E is already turning out to be the Manhattan Project of house rules, more so than 1E and 2E ever was. (glad 3E saw a minimal amount of that, least in my games)
You don't need house rules to cover this, as the Acrobatics skill covers this exact situation, or you can make up a feat as previously mentioned. And 3.5 mounted combat (and the ride skill) was useless beyond 4th or 5th level unless you got a flying mount or dragon, or something else along those lines.
Yay, more Razz-crapping.
And we get to the threshold of why a more dumbed down and simpler game does NOT make a good Tabletop RPG for the experienced. 4E couldn't even cover mounted combat properly. What a shame.
4th Edition did cover mounted combat perfectly fine: the original poster was just asking for a way to do it faster than as a standard action. My proposed idea was perfectly well within the 4E rules if you could have been bothered to read Acrobatics.
Hm, wow, it seems looking at my 3E book, so much has been covered. Wow. More classes and spells are, too, and more types of armor! How interesting and fun! Why would anyone want to switch to a game with LESS and only to find themselves getting stuck when they truly did need the stats to brigandine armor or half plate? (yes, I am also aiming at why
No one asked for, and certainly does not want, your opinion. I'll take more effective, dynamic, and flexible characters over a type of armor no one used anyday.
Staying on topic, I'd recommend the OP to just house rule the mounted combat issue, since 4E is already turning out to be the Manhattan Project of house rules, more so than 1E and 2E ever was. (glad 3E saw a minimal amount of that, least in my games)
My solution was not a house rule, and a new feat is likewise not a houserule. We are not proposing to change how mounted combat works, but simply proposing a new rule or method to do it faster. Not that you will listen to this, or will it prevent you from going into other 4E threads and trying to unsuccessfully convince people to do things how you want.
My solution was not a house rule, and a new feat is likewise not a houserule. We are not proposing to change how mounted combat works, but simply proposing a new rule or method to do it faster. Not that you will listen to this, or will it prevent you from going into other 4E threads and trying to unsuccessfully convince people to do things how you want.
Unless you are working for WotC and writing official content for them, a new feat would in fact be a houserule.
My solution was not a house rule, and a new feat is likewise not a houserule. We are not proposing to change how mounted combat works, but simply proposing a new rule or method to do it faster. Not that you will listen to this, or will it prevent you from going into other 4E threads and trying to unsuccessfully convince people to do things how you want.Unless you are working for WotC and writing official content for them, a new feat would in fact be a houserule.
Considering there is an entire ONE book out for 4th Edition containing feats, I have no fear WotC will eventually put some more feats out there for mounted combat. Any feat we came up with would probably be a placeholder.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Considering there is an entire ONE book out for 4th Edition containing feats, I have no fear WotC will eventually put some more feats out there for mounted combat. Any feat we came up with would probably be a placeholder.
*nods* I'd make sure you want your preferences known though. The break down in the example above (the ranger unable to get on his horse because he's too busy fighting for his life) does seem to be annoying.
IDPTB4e, but maybe it should be a ride skill check, assuming there's a ride skill?
Or you can mount your horse as a minor action, but you can't do it more than once a day ;-)
Considering there is an entire ONE book out for 4th Edition containing feats, I have no fear WotC will eventually put some more feats out there for mounted combat. Any feat we came up with would probably be a placeholder.
*nods* I'd make sure you want your preferences known though. The break down in the example above (the ranger unable to get on his horse because he's too busy fighting for his life) does seem to be annoying.
IDPTB4e, but maybe it should be a ride skill check, assuming there's a ride skill?
Or you can mount your horse as a minor action, but you can't do it more than once a day ;-)
There isn't a ride skill. It'd probably be an Acrobatics or Athletics check like suggested above - leaping up on the back of a horse.
The Acrobatics skill allows for an undefined acrobatic stunt, such as somersaulting over an opponent, sliding down a staircase (on your shield), or something else that you can think of and your DM agrees to. Generally the DC is 15, but the DM can set it higher depending on the stunt.
If you fail, you fall prone in your square, or somewhere else the DM decides you land.
The Acrobatics skill allows for an undefined acrobatic stunt, such as somersaulting over an opponent, sliding down a staircase (on your shield), or something else that you can think of and your DM agrees to. Generally the DC is 15, but the DM can set it higher depending on the stunt.
If you fail, you fall prone in your square, or somewhere else the DM decides you land.
Antoich, do you think the Athletics skill could be used for this also, considering it encompasses the former "Jump" skill?
|
|
Unless you are working for WotC and writing official content for them, a new feat would in fact be a houserule.
I would argue that there is a difference between a "house rule" and "homebrewed content."
A "house rule" would change the actual mechanics of the game, such as stating that death occurs at -25% instead of -50%, or that resurrection costs 5,000 gold regardless of tier.
Homebrewed content such as additional monsters, feats, rituals, etc would certainly not be considered core or official, but it feels like a separate category to me.
In this case, I think other people's solutions are just about right. An "Acrobatic Stunt" usage of the Acrobatics skill is defined as a "Standard or Move action, depending on the usage," so it's well within the rules for the DM to rule a fast mount action as a move. Adding a feat to the game to allow mounting as a minor action strikes me as both balanced with the content that exists and in keeping with the general design philosophy of 4E feats.
I see one rules interpretation, and one homebrew feat. I don't see any house rules here.
|
|
Antoich, do you think the Athletics skill could be used for this also, considering it encompasses the former "Jump" skill?
I would suggest not.
"Make an Athletics check to attempt physical activities that rely on muscular strength, including climbing, escaping from a grab, jumping, and swimming."
I don't see where rushing a typical action would be a feat of muscular strength. If anything, massive thighs would probably get in the way of getting onto a horse.
Now, if somebody wants to leap from the edge of a short cliff into the saddle of a horse waiting 15 feet away, that would be Athletics to determine whether they jump far enough to land in the appropriate square, and probably Acrobatics to land in the saddle instead of on the ground at the horse's feet.
I would argue that there is a difference between a "house rule" and "homebrewed content."
Sure you can argue that. Though as "evidence" that you may be arguing a distinction without a difference, I would point to:
House rules can range from the tiniest of changes or additions to substantial deviations that alter the entire game play, depending on the imagination of the players.
Of course in such "evidence" you have to consider the source, which I don't claim as necessarily convincing.
Link: House Rule
Antoich, do you think the Athletics skill could be used for this also, considering it encompasses the former "Jump" skill?
I would suggest not.
"Make an Athletics check to attempt physical activities that rely on muscular strength, including climbing, escaping from a grab, jumping, and swimming."
I don't see where rushing a typical action would be a feat of muscular strength. If anything, massive thighs would probably get in the way of getting onto a horse.
Now, if somebody wants to leap from the edge of a short cliff into the saddle of a horse waiting 15 feet away, that would be Athletics to determine whether they jump far enough to land in the appropriate square, and probably Acrobatics to land in the saddle instead of on the ground at the horse's feet.
Good point! I'll go with Acrobatics.
|
|
Yay! Technicality fight!
House rules are variants on the basic rules designed specifically for a particular DM’s campaign...If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your rights
The two examples given on that page are critical miss, and critical success/failure.
Sadly, there's no section of the DMG on creating your own spells/feats/etc for me to point at as being distinct.
So, it looks like we each get to stick to our guns, each assume that we're right, and a neutral observer could claim that we're arguing over a completely meaningless distinction. Just like every good technicality fight!
;)
I would be inclined in my game to allow Athletics, since it technically is used to perform things like jumping. However, I consider a quick-mount to be more the venue of agility, and Ride (Dex) was used to quickly get on your horse. Ultimately, if a character wants to do that, I'd just up the DC by 5. Its totally your game, your call though!
This is the kind of crap I LIKE to see on a forum: friendly, polite questions and discussions rather than arguing over semantics or pointless crap.
I've changed my mind! I love 4e. Sorry for threadcrapping all the time everyone. From now on, I promise that whenever I can't help myself and threadcrap, I'll try to make it up to everyone by posting how I really feel about 4e. Because here's the thing:
I LOVE 4E!!!
Anyway, I think the feat idea works, but this discussion of mounted combat brings up one of the things I love about 4e - I can make an effective paladin without being saddled (ha!) with a mount. It always bugged me in 3e the way the paladin class was almost shoehorned into mounted combat. Sure, you could ignore the mount and try something else, but the class ability just begged you to make use of it. I always felt guilty not using the class feature, even though mounts were so frequently made ineffectual by being in dungeons and such.
Anyway, I think I'm done, though it's entirely possible I may crop up with even more positive things to say in this, and in any other 4e thread where I accidentally threadcrap. Sorry for being so bi-polar, but I just feel like it's the right thing to do, to somehow add some karmic balance to the childish and petty post I submitted above.
4e 4ever!
Love it - keep 'em coming. :D
|
I've changed my mind! I love 4e. Sorry for threadcrapping all the time everyone. From now on, I promise that whenever I can't help myself and threadcrap, I'll try to make it up to everyone by posting how I really feel about 4e. Because here's the thing:
I LOVE 4E!!!
Anyway, I think the feat idea works, but this discussion of mounted combat brings up one of the things I love about 4e - I can make an effective paladin without being saddled (ha!) with a mount. It always bugged me in 3e the way the paladin class was almost shoehorned into mounted combat. Sure, you could ignore the mount and try something else, but the class ability just begged you to make use of it. I always felt guilty not using the class feature, even though mounts were so frequently made ineffectual by being in dungeons and such.
Anyway, I think I'm done, though it's entirely possible I may crop up with even more positive things to say in this, and in any other 4e thread where I accidentally threadcrap. Sorry for being so bi-polar, but I just feel like it's the right thing to do, to somehow add some karmic balance to the childish and petty post I submitted above.
4e 4ever!
Alright, own up. Which one of you gave Razz a Mirror of Opposition?
Hahaha, sneaky bugger!
I hate you Sebastian. I almost fell for it, too.
Isn´t there a rule against sockpuppeting?
Isn´t there a rule against sockpuppeting?
Never give them legs? Wait, that's the rule about fingerpuppeting ...
During the discussion, I had flashbacks to westerns and various parodies thereof...
Acrobatic skill check - hero makes a dashing leap onto his horse, lands clean, rears up in a display of majesty and gallops off to do whatever it is he needs to do.
Athletic skill check - hero propels himself at the horse, falls into the saddle (possibly bruising his "boys" depending on the flavor of your table), and spends the time till his next turn righting himself.
In my view, the skill choice depends entirely on how the player decides to roleplay the action; quite in keeping with existing rules. Definitely a rule interpretation, nothing more, nothing less.
Oh, I know that my idea wasnt a houserule at all: it just took a cursory examination of existing skills and their open-ended uses.