Scenario:
PCs fight off a bunch of bandits who are on horseback.
When figuring the XP budget would you count the horses total as well?
My inclination is to leave the horses out of it; they are essentially non-combatant except as directed by the bandits.
However, I'd like to hear other opinions before deciding.
Thanks in advance.
Aslong as the horses aren't attacking, thats fine. When they attack or cause a threat, thats a different ball game and you should include thier exp.
Scenario:
PCs fight off a bunch of bandits who are on horseback.
When figuring the XP budget would you count the horses total as well?
My inclination is to leave the horses out of it; they are essentially non-combatant except as directed by the bandits.
However, I'd like to hear other opinions before deciding.
Thanks in advance.
I'm inclined to say no. They're equipment. Low level PC's who buy a war horse or a riding dog don't get docked XP
Thanks for the feedback. That is what I assumed.
If the horses significantly increased the difficulty of the fight, I'd increase the XP gained.
Of course, I don't use XP when I GM, so take my advice with a grain of salt.
Depends on how much use the horses were in the fight.
If the bandits used their horses tactically (to move around the battlefield, to attack, to block movement), then I'd add them in. If the bandits just rode them up to the PCs and attack from horseback, then I would probably give a 5% boost to the XP.
If the bandits had to pay for the horses, that is, you counted the cost horses when figuring out the bandits' equipment, then the horses are equipment.
I would add at least part of it in.
After all mounts that don't attack still provide many bonuses:
There's the bonus to hit for being mounted.
There's the increased movement for being mounted.
There's letting the mount move and full attacking at range, or still getting a standard and move action.
There's the fact the mount is still a target that can absorb damage.
You can use a mount for cover (per the ride skill).
IF a lance is used it is done so one handed and gets extra damage on a charge.
Over all mounts are much more than just another creature to swing with -- and as such at more as a "buffer" than a direct combatant.
Unless the mounts drastically change the nature of the combat you keep it at the standard CR. And those options are going to be a menu of choice, you're not going to have the whole salad list in one encounter. Also remember as players themselves advance... the mounts become less relevant a factor. Mage whips out an improved sleep and they all collapse. etc.I would add at least part of it in.
After all mounts that don't attack still provide many bonuses:
There's the bonus to hit for being mounted.
There's the increased movement for being mounted.
There's letting the mount move and full attacking at range, or still getting a standard and move action.
There's the fact the mount is still a target that can absorb damage.
You can use a mount for cover (per the ride skill).
IF a lance is used it is done so one handed and gets extra damage on a charge.Over all mounts are much more than just another creature to swing with -- and as such at more as a "buffer" than a direct combatant.
Which is why they have less impact due to the lower CR and therefore give less exp at later levels -- it does not mean they don't affect it.
I'm not saying full Exp should be given -- but mounts do drastically can the way fights go and each of those options (except the lance) are standard with mounts.