Continuing in the vein of D&D horses, I have to say, both as a DM and as a player, I hate horses in D&D.
In real earth, right up to the invention and mass production of the automobile, horses (or similar animals, like camels) were the only means people had for transportation faster than walking.
In real earth, a person could easily and safely ride their horse to the next village and trade goods in that village market, then ride home. The only threat would be bandits, and that threat is more easily resolved mounted than afoot anyway.
But in D&D, horses are a liability.
Playing devil's advocate, in real earth, there are no ankhegs or dragons or ogre's to attack you. And most people didn't have combat training on their horses, they either tried to outride the bandits, or they lost their horses to the bandits too if they were ambushed and had to walk home too (assuming they didn't suffer from an extreme case of wood poisoning when the ambush occurs).
I do agree that some of the mounted feats are a bit much, I've generally allowed people to do most of the mounted stuff with just ride (but at a +5 to +10 to the DC check without the feat). That way, you can do it without spending feats, but it's easier with them. Some of the feats are already set up that way, so you have to look at them closely.
For D&D, I've always thought that even warhorses are not really suited for adventurers. Much more suitable are riding dogs, riding cats (tigers, etc), large riding lizards (lots of claws, teeth and armor), things like that.
In my current campaign, the players have been walking because where they come from, horses are few and far between. There just isn't a lot of animals used for travel where they come from (high mountains) except for griffens and pegasi, but even those are rare. They are about to be given some riding lizards by a grateful royal. These riding lizards are combat trained, and are basically large drakes (with no breath weapons or anything like that). All terrain, heavy natural armor, claws, teeth. In other words, something that the ankheg is going to blink at twice before taking on, and then is more likely to go after the players themselves, small and squishy looking. :)
The issue we ran into in play with a large party (7ish?) of mounted combatants was that the battle mat would simply be too crowded unless the field was totally open. Even battles in a good sized keep (100 x 200) with few obstacles got very tough to manage especially if some or all of the opposition was mounted.Well, the simple answer is, that kind of stuff is best left to video games and Hollywood.
....or high fantasy in Cormyr!
Your observations regarding the historical use of cavalry are certainly valid, but I would point out that this discussion is in the context of a fantasy RPG so suspension of disbelief is fairly liberal. ;)
Alas much of the issue (excepting terrain limitations) stems from the game weakness of horses. They tend to become moot after low levels if they aren't animal companions or some such. We used modified rules from In the Saddle and Noble Steeds to address this issue, and it worked well in our game.
Continuing in the vein of D&D horses, I have to say, both as a DM and as a player, I hate horses in D&D.
In real earth, right up to the invention and mass production of the automobile, horses (or similar animals, like camels) were the only means people had for transportation faster than walking.
In real earth, a person could easily and safely ride their horse to the next village and trade goods in that village market, then ride home. The only threat would be bandits, and that threat is more easily resolved mounted than afoot anyway.
But in D&D, horses are a liability.
Can the average adventurer fight from the back of an average horse?
No and no. The horse isn't trained for it, and the adventurer must devote feats to be able to control a horse in combat, fight while mounted, cast spells while mounted, etc.
Those feats don't do him much good in a dungeon, or in a castle, or in a wizard's tower, or at sea, or roaming the plane of fire, etc.
So should an adventurer waste feats so he can win a few mounted encounters when 90% of the encounters he will face, over his career, will be afoot?
Not likely.
So most adventurers don't have these feats, and so most adventurers can't really fight from the back of a horse.
Further, it's hard to imagine an ankheg, or a griffon, or a purple worm, or just about any other large unintelligent carnivore preferring a person over a horse.
So horses die.
A few encounters down the road, and half the adventuring party is walking afoot anyway.
So as a player, I dislike spending precious feats on a combat style I will hardly ever use, so I don't. I also dislike paying for monster food, even if I can ride that monster food halfway to the next town.
Sure, when we're traveling a relatively well-patroled road from village a to village b, I'll gladly ride rather than walk. Might even get there faster, if we don't lose too many horses to random encounters.
And heck, every round that the griffon is eating my horse is a round that it isn't eating me.
As...
One of the factors that made mounted combat feats so unattractive for PCs was the fact that by mid level the horses were simply irrelevant
with some mechanism to advance them. This renders the feat investment irrelevant by mid levels as well as terrain restricted at early levels.
(Sorry OP if I've derailed the thread.)
Continuing in the vein of D&D horses, I have to say, both as a DM and as a player, I hate horses in D&D.
In real earth, right up to the invention and mass production of the automobile, horses (or similar animals, like camels) were the only means people had for transportation faster than walking.
In real earth, a person could easily and safely ride their horse to the next village and trade goods in that village market, then ride home. The only threat would be bandits, and that threat is more easily resolved mounted than afoot anyway.
But in D&D, horses are a liability.
Playing devil's advocate, in real earth, there are no ankhegs or dragons or ogre's to attack you. And most people didn't have combat training on their horses, they either tried to outride the bandits, or they lost their horses to the bandits too if they were ambushed and had to walk home too (assuming they didn't suffer from an extreme case of wood poisoning when the ambush occurs).
I do agree that some of the mounted feats are a bit much, I've generally allowed people to do most of the mounted stuff with just ride (but at a +5 to +10 to the DC check without the feat). That way, you can do it without spending feats, but it's easier with them. Some of the feats are already set up that way, so you have to look at them closely.
For D&D, I've always thought that even warhorses are not really suited for adventurers. Much more suitable are riding dogs, riding cats (tigers, etc), large riding lizards (lots of claws, teeth and armor), things like that.
In my current campaign, the players have been walking because where they come from, horses are few and far between. There just isn't a lot of animals used for travel where they come from (high mountains) except for griffens and pegasi, but even those are rare. They are about to be given some riding lizards by a grateful royal. These riding lizards are combat trained, and are basically large drakes (with no breath weapons or anything like that). All...
Playing devil's advocate, in real earth, there are no ankhegs or dragons or ogre's to attack you. And most people didn't have combat training on their horses, they either tried to outride the bandits, or they lost their horses to the bandits too if they were ambushed and had to walk home too (assuming they didn't suffer from an extreme case of wood poisoning when the ambush occurs).
That's not devil's advocate.
That's Tarrasque's advocate, because you're advocating my point exactly.
Thanks!
Your observations regarding the historical use of cavalry are certainly valid, but I would point out that this discussion is in the context of a fantasy RPG so suspension of disbelief is fairly liberal. ;)The issue we ran into in play with a large party (7ish?) of mounted combatants was that the battle mat would simply be too crowded unless the field was totally open. Even battles in a good sized keep (100 x 200) with few obstacles got very tough to manage especially if some or all of the opposition was mounted.Well, the simple answer is, that kind of stuff is best left to video games and Hollywood.
Well and good. Suspend all you want.
For me, I need a healthy dose of belief in my RPGs. I want stuff to work like stuff works in the real world.
And if we start talking aobut stuff that isn't in the real world, like dragons, or unicorns, or whatever, then I want it to work like I would be inclined to think such things might work if they did exist in the real world.
Or at least a plausible facsimile thereof.
Sitting around on a horse's back, limiting your own mobility because you're straddling a large animal, limiting your own reach because you can't twist well and hit things on your "off-side" or behind you very well, while that horse is smushed into a compressed area and surrounded by milling enemies in a crowded courtyard, is a recipe for suicide - both for you and your horse.
That's reality-based fantasy.
Playing it any other way is make-believe fantasy.
I prefer the former, for my game.
That should have read "with out some mechanism"
One of the factors that made mounted combat feats so unattractive for PCs was the fact that by mid level the horses were simply irrelevant
with some mechanism to advance them. This renders the feat investment irrelevant by mid levels as well as terrain restricted at early levels.(Sorry OP if I've derailed the thread.)
Continuing in the vein of D&D horses, I have to say, both as a DM and as a player, I hate horses in D&D.
In real earth, right up to the invention and mass production of the automobile, horses (or similar animals, like camels) were the only means people had for transportation faster than walking.
In real earth, a person could easily and safely ride their horse to the next village and trade goods in that village market, then ride home. The only threat would be bandits, and that threat is more easily resolved mounted than afoot anyway.
But in D&D, horses are a liability.
Playing devil's advocate, in real earth, there are no ankhegs or dragons or ogre's to attack you. And most people didn't have combat training on their horses, they either tried to outride the bandits, or they lost their horses to the bandits too if they were ambushed and had to walk home too (assuming they didn't suffer from an extreme case of wood poisoning when the ambush occurs).
I do agree that some of the mounted feats are a bit much, I've generally allowed people to do most of the mounted stuff with just ride (but at a +5 to +10 to the DC check without the feat). That way, you can do it without spending feats, but it's easier with them. Some of the feats are already set up that way, so you have to look at them closely.
For D&D, I've always thought that even warhorses are not really suited for adventurers. Much more suitable are riding dogs, riding cats (tigers, etc), large riding lizards (lots of claws, teeth and armor), things like that.
In my current campaign, the players have been walking because where they come from, horses are few and far...
There is a limit to how good a horse or warhorse can get.
There are things you can do however to overcome this.
Templates
The character should be able to replace his horse with a Celestial or Fiendish warhorse. This beefs them up nicely, and given the realities of the world, these would be bred by someone for sale to adventurers with gold. Exact prices would be up to the GM, but considering a heavy warhorse is 400g, I think a good Celestial or Fiendish heavy warhorse would be decently priced at 2,000gp (A +1 weapon worth of value). The player wouldn't be able to afford one until about the time a real warhorse is starting to wear out. The Woodling template from MM3 is also an option. Don't have to worry about that ankheg or ogre wanting to eat your horse if it's made of wood and has moss for a mane (and the +7 natural armor is sure to help keep it alive!). I'd say those would probably be worth about 3,000gp.
Also note that if you add a template, you now convert the animal into a magical animal, which means you can advance their HD. The exact advancement is up to the GM of course, but that helps keep them usable at higher levels.
Other Riding Creatures
There are other creatures, which at higher levels, make a very good replacement for the horses but can be used. Nightmares, Dire Wolves (ouch!), Dire Tigers (Big Ouch), Celestial Dire Lions (Double ouch), and so on. You can go through the alternate lists for the Paladin special mount and druid/ranger companions to get some ideas. There's nothing in the rules saying a regular character can't get a celestial horse as a steed, it won't have any of the special mount abilities of a paladin's mount, it'll just be a bigger tougher horse. I really wish they had a Dire template, or rules on how to make dire animals. A Dire Horse would work nicely (honestly, you can do it yourself if you want).
Magical Items
Also, you can get magical items that are riding creatures (horse statues, etc). I was in a campaign and I found a horse statue that turned into an animated stone horse (can't remember the name of the item now, it's in the DMG or the Magical Item Web Enhancement for PF). I gave it to our Half-Orc fighter/cleric, and he used it with great effect to do ride-bys, tramples, and lots of other attacks until we got it taken away from us along with all our other equipment when we got sold into slavery at 9th level (and it was still being very effective then).
By the way, what rule do you use guys for the playe miniature when its mounted. The player is 5x5 but the mount 10x10. Does the miniature is considered to be on every square? Otherwise how do the enemies can hit it without reach?
Per the combat rules (see the combat chapter), for creatures larger than medium, you have to threaten one of the squares they take up. Riders are considered to be threatened if their mount is threatened.
Now, having said that, there is also some common sense to be used to. If you have a tiny creature riding on a large creature, I usually adjudge them to have some extra AC from cover vs melee attacks. A small creature riding a collossal creature could probably avoid being attacked in melee (full cover).
Ranged attacks of course...
Oh, and I usually substitute the animals dex for the riders dex for their AC, since the mount is the one doing the moving around, not the rider.
|
The Ride skill rules already support cover bonus to the rider while mounted. I'm hearing a lot of anti-equine arguments on this thread, but I for one like horses/mounts in D&D. Sure, not everyone should be good at riding, but a paladin/ranger/druid just feels empty to me without a mount. I also think that a lot of criticism is due to inexperience or unwillingness to try the mounted combat rules. When you fully explore the things you can do with the mounted feats and the Ride skills, things ain't so bad. There's also the fact that at high levels, characters who don't have a special mount/animal companion can benefit from stronger steeds than regular warhorses (i.e. bronze griffons, figurines of power, stone destriers, and guess what: for the amount of gold you spend on such nice magical "rides," one can also buy pretty nasty "live" mounts, such as trained dire lions, trained elephants, trained griffons, etc.) With minor magic item expenditures, these thougher live breeds can be really durable.
It's great the things money can buy! :)
|
|
Addendum to last: also, with PRPG Beta, a lot of classes don't get "jump" anymore (i.e. acrobatics). Fighters used to have the jump skill, now they don't (same for paladins). One way to go around that is the Ride skill, as you can make a Ride check to have your mount jump... :) (so your mount wastes the acrobatics/jump ranks instead of you!) :)
...and when you have enough to buy a flying mount, then you don't need ranks in jump/acrobatics anyhow... :)
I'm hearing a lot of anti-equine arguments on this thread, but I for one like horses/mounts in D&D. Sure, not everyone should be good at riding, but a paladin/ranger/druid just feels empty to me without a mount.
Paladins, yeah, maybe.
Rangers, well, sometimes yes, sometimes no. Good for traveling, not so good for lurking about keeping an eye on bad guys, troop movements, migration paths, etc. And so very very easy to lose them when you tether them to a tree and sneak off to count heads in the new orc village, then come back and find a bloody mess and a couple griffon footprints where the horse used to be.
Druids have animal companions but it doesn't mean they ride them. In fact, I can see a strong argument for a druid taking a very PETA-like attitude about animal servitude (even voluntary servitude) and would rather die than ride an animal. What about a druid with a snake companion, or a gorilla companion, etc.? Also, some druids may prefer to wildshape into something like their AC, so a druid with a tiger AC may just wildshape into another tiger and go hunting/running/traveling alongside his buddy.
And all three of these guys, as well as all other adventurers, very frequently go where horses cannot go, so every feat/skill/coin spent on mounts is wasted for a large majority of their adventuring career.
I also think that a lot of criticism is due to inexperience or unwillingness to try the mounted combat rules.
Nope.
Use them a lot. Until a band of wandering ogres eats the party's horses while they are all deep in a dark dungeon somewhere.
I particularly love using them against the adventures.
See, if you settle in a fixed location, set up gaurd towers, keep a sharp eye on your stables and corrals, and return home the same day you ride out, your horses may live a very long time. So settled bad guys, even orcs and other nasties, may very well have horses, or similar riding beasts, and may very well use them against adventurers.
When you fully explore the things you can do with the mounted feats and the Ride skills, things ain't so bad.
Except you've burned those feats and skills, and a lot of coin on mouts, tack, and armor, for something that helps you in a few encounters on the way to a dungeon, if it lives that long, then you go in the dungeon and face dozens of encounters without your horse. Feats/skills/coin spent on a horse that is tethered outside and doing you zero good in the dungeon.
There's also the fact that at high levels, characters who don't have a special mount/animal companion can benefit from stronger steeds than regular warhorses (i.e. bronze griffons, figurines of power, stone destriers,
All good ideas, but very expensive for a mount you will use in what, maybe 1/10 of your encounters. If you spent the feats/skills to use it properly - a lot of resourses tied up in a small portion of your adventuring.
and guess what: for the amount of gold you spend on such nice magical "rides," one can also buy pretty nasty "live" mounts, such as trained dire lions, trained elephants, trained griffons, etc.) With minor magic item expenditures, these thougher live breeds can be really durable.
Still expensive, still requires feat/skill resourses, still just a fraction of your adventuring career.
Buy a better sword, better armor, some healing potions, and delve deep!
Except you've burned those feats and skills, and a lot of coin on mouts, tack, and armor, for something that helps you in a few encounters on the way to a dungeon, if it lives that long, then you go in the dungeon and face dozens of encounters without your horse. Feats/skills/coin spent on a horse that is tethered outside and doing you zero good in the dungeon.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
There's also the fact that at high levels, characters who don't have a special mount/animal companion can benefit from stronger steeds than regular warhorses (i.e. bronze griffons, figurines of power, stone destriers,
All good ideas, but very expensive for a mount you will use in what, maybe 1/10 of your encounters. If you spent the feats/skills to use it properly - a lot of resourses tied up in a small portion of your adventuring.
And this illustrates why there are pro-mount and con-mount people.
I'm in the middle, honestly, and here's why...
If your game consists of 90% dungeon crawls, or 90% underdark adventures, then mounts are useless and nobody should expend feats/resources on them. This is DM_Blake's outlook because that is the types of games he is in.
If your game consists of 90% overland travel, exploration, searching, etc and 10% dungeon crawls and underdark adventures, then mounts become much more important and those feats and resources aren't wasted at all (this is where the OP seems to be, and where my own games seem to end up).
Where it comes down to personal preference is when it's 50/50. That is, you travel around a lot and do above ground adventures about half the time, and the other half you spend underground or exploring old ruins or climbing up mountainsides that mounts can't go. Then it comes down to 'I want bonuses when we're traveling around and adventuring in the open' or 'I don't like dealing with animals, I will work instead on dungeon crawl stuff'.
If your game consists of 90% dungeon crawls, or 90% underdark adventures, then mounts are useless and nobody should expend feats/resources on them. This is DM_Blake's outlook because that is the types of games he is in.
If your game consists of 90% overland travel, exploration, searching, etc and 10% dungeon crawls and underdark adventures, then mounts become much more important and those feats and resources aren't wasted at all (this is where the OP seems to be, and where my own games seem to end up).
Where it comes down to personal preference is when it's 50/50. That is, you travel around a lot and do above ground adventures about half the time, and the other half you spend underground or exploring old ruins or climbing up mountainsides that mounts can't go. Then it comes down to 'I want bonuses when we're traveling around and adventuring in the open' or 'I don't like dealing with animals, I will work instead on dungeon crawl stuff'.
I hear what you're saying.
As my final rebuttal, then I'll leave this subject alone because I've said my piece, consider this.
Even if your campaign is 50/50, or roughly so, you still have two options.
Two options: take a mounted combat feat and use it half the time, or take something else, like Tougness, or Empower Spell, or Weapon Finesse, or whatever your combat thing is, and use it all the time.
Two options: pay for a mount, pay for tack, pay for barding, pay for feed, pay for replacement mounts occasionally as the need arises, and use it half the time, or pay for a magical sword, or a staff of fire, or boots of speed, or a belt of strength, or a ring of regeneration, or whatever (yeah, some of that is really expensive, but comparable to things like trained dire tigers or trained dragons), and use it all the time.
Either way, it's always economically sound to equip your character with the best gear money can buy - but to focus on stuff you will use all the time instead of only part of the time.
Unless your campaign has you mounted all the time. I have yet to see such a campaign, but I suppose they're out there.
|
|
DM_Blake, I understand your point of view, as I once shared it. I used to be a "constant bonus first" guy as well, and true, you can probably maximize your PC build by taking "bonus on every swing" feats such as Weapon Focus.
The truth is that after nearly 10 years of gaming with the 3.X system, I'm going out of my way to avoid such boring builds. True, it's good to hit with every swing, but I've now grown to enjoy the more indirect involvement of some classes (bards, druids, rangers, and when playing a fighter, I tend to make it a halfling and sprinkle a few rogue levels in there... crazy heh? :P )
I still min/max these "indirect guys" to bits to make them the best at what they do, but I don't try to beat the fighters or the mages at their own games doing it.
To whit, my latest two PCs are:
A) A Kelish ranger (Badawi desert nomad) with the archery feat tree, and with Animal Companion (Camel) --> with the camel having the endurance, sandwalker (LoF player guide), and run feats. When the slow full plate tank tries to plow slowly through sand to attack his village, closing in to melee, this guy and his fellow villagers were circling the fools with Mounted Archery, camels at full gallop! :P The plan is to breed a flying mount for this guy via the Handle Animal skill, to make him even uberer (keep a main animal companion mount, with a few trained flying buddies in tow... never underestimate Handle Animal used during homecampaigns; such additional beasts are usually restricted in organized play campaigns, but no such restrictions in home games, provided the player is smart about the logistics).
B) A half-orc druid8/fighter1 with all the Mounted Combat feats and with Natural spell (fighter level for lance and heavy armor proficiency; extra feat was just gravy...) --> this guy uses a "lion, large" (from the revised animal companion rules) and uses his lance via spirited charge and ride-by attack. If no allies are in the way, the mount keeps moving over the enemy with an attack at +4 via overrun via the druid's Trample feat, and the overrun is enhanced by the mount's Improved Overrun feat. Granted, you can only do that about 25% of the time, when your allies don't block your bloody charge! :P But in wide dungeon rooms or outside, it's great. My half-orc is constantly in wild shape riding the lion (via plant shape I - medium size - using a plant form that has hands, such as myconid or volodni; he gets the bonuses to STR, CON and Nat Armor, can still cast spells via natural spell, and his Dragonplate +1 has the wild property, thus providing its full +9 armor bonus while in that plant shape; plus the enemies don't know he's armored as it's melded in his barky looking plant shape!). When in cramped spaces where he can't ride-by, he still does a spirited charge for triple damage and the large lion then pounces at the end of the charge! (claw, claw, bite (improved grab), rake, rake).
So while I like the simplicity of a strict PRPG rules campaign vs. the silliness I was experiencing at the end of 3.5 with the too numerous "Complete XXXX" books, I now like to explore the less traveled roads a little more, just for something different, and for the pleasure of the occasional "cool move" that works only one time out of four (guilty as charged: I am an illogical human! Spock (the young one) hates me! :P)
|
What about a bag of tricks that only summons barded and tacked warhorses? That would be useful for higher level mounted combat freaks.
As for the OP, I'd try to keep the encounter pretty easy. If you make the pit trap glarinly obvious (branches over it or just an open hole), it would serve as a way to force a party to stop at the ambush point, rather than actually be a trap. When the group of "prey" creatures stop to investigate their options (go back? go around? jump it?), then the kobolds open up with crossbows from the hedges and trees.
A team of 8 kobolds are EL 3, so that's a pretty good fight for a bunch of level 1-2 PC's. Have the kobolds work in fire teams of 2 though. One shoots the crossbow and the other readies a spear to receive a charge. Once their target is down/wounded, they move in to finish it off in melee. If one gets killed, the other flees. That's still 4 crossbow shots per round and it'll teach the PC's the dangers of charging someone with a readied action.
Krome:
I would properly let the whole thing happen after a bit of hunting, and let a prize stag appear. The patron rushes after the stag, as it runs away. Heading just towards the trap.
Let the players make an opposed ride check against the patron to be able to keep up with him (or maybe make a flat DC about 15 or so, so it will be fairly difficult at low levels).
If nobody manages to keep up with him, they er far enough behind him to see him and his horse fall into the trap and the kobolds jumping at him from their shelter. I think you should resolve the patron's accident automatically (no need to roll skill checks for a NPC in this situation).
If somebody keeps up with the patron, let them risk falling into the trap as well, with DCs manageble so you don't just kill them outright. I think it makes sense that they are throw off their horses so a few d6 damage (reflex 10 for half) should be somewhat appropriate for low level characters.
I think there should be some chance that the PCs are affected by the trap. I personally prefers that players are activated by the different aspects of an encounter, and in this case I think avoiding/falling into a trap is much more interesting than just battling some kobolds.
Two options: pay for a mount, pay for tack, pay for barding, pay for feed, pay for replacement mounts occasionally as the need arises, and use it half the time, or pay for a magical sword, or a staff of fire, or boots of speed, or a belt of strength, or a ring of regeneration, or whatever (yeah, some of that is really expensive, but comparable to things like trained dire tigers or trained dragons), and use it all the time.
Ugh.
So glad I've never played in a campaign that ever allowed players to buy magic items... seems it really would stuff up balance!
Nah, between mark-ups for rarity/special order and availability rules, buying things outright doesn't really harm the balance. Then there's always having something altered or exchanged because you couldn't use the original.
There is a limit to how good a horse or warhorse can get.
There are things you can do however to overcome this.
I found this handy.
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=2319&it=1&am p;filters=0_0_0_0&manufacturers_id=67
|
KOBOLD QUARTERLY: TRAPSMITHING
The Bit relevent to you:
"Applying Cave Subsidence to Pits
It means that any unreinforced Pit wall will fail out to 35 degrees from bottom of any pit with 11' of width per 10' of depth. Killing anyone stupid enough to dig one below 5' depth x physical height."
D&D minis is the reason they got rid of the 5x10 bases...for large/long creatures.
Tactical control? That's called Threatened Area...if the bases is 10x10 that makes the threatened area 20x20...or 30x30 since large creatures have reach...that doesn't make sense...
Just cuz WotC is money grubby and wanted all their minis to have round bases to keep the costs down, doesn't mean we gotta think liek they do...it was one of those oversimplifications that got carried away...
YMMV