I was wondering, how often do you (as GM) attack / kill your players' mounts? Or, how often do you (as a player) have your mount attacked by GM run meanies?
My group has been hesitant to use mounts because of the general impression that mounts die quickly / easily and, I suspect, because they think I'm out to get them (they might be right on this last one).
As an ancillary question, one which is hard to really answer given its vague / open-ended nature, how often *should* a mount get killed and / or eaten by a mob? Do you GMs find that you prefer to ignore mounts? Or is mount-buying something your players do nightly (or more)?
Thanks,
Jack
Its entirely up to the DM, if they remember it. I'm playing a cavalier in Kingmaker and I'm using mounted combat in most of the fights so far in the 2nd book. They may let you get away with it early on, but don't be surprised when you're horse gets an axe swung at him.
When I DM, I avoid attacking mounts. My monsters are (usually) more preoccupied with the guy with a pointy stick on it.
Developer
|
I was wondering, how often do you (as GM) attack / kill your players' mounts? Or, how often do you (as a player) have your mount attacked by GM run meanies?
My group has been hesitant to use mounts because of the general impression that mounts die quickly / easily and, I suspect, because they think I'm out to get them (they might be right on this last one).
As an ancillary question, one which is hard to really answer given its vague / open-ended nature, how often *should* a mount get killed and / or eaten by a mob? Do you GMs find that you prefer to ignore mounts? Or is mount-buying something your players do nightly (or more)?
Thanks,
Jack
Depends on the monster. Big dumb (or even mindless) carnivores will go for the biggest meal. This is the mount. Of course if something is hurting them, their attention can be drawn away, but first priority is delicious horsemeat.
The vampire monk could care less about the silly horse.
An extremely intelligent/wise creature might recognize the tactical value of a mount and therefore decide to take it out, but such a creature may also be aware of the potential for mounted combat to negate hits.
I try to play monsters at their INT/WIS, so tactics vary greatly if a cavalier shows up.
As a player, I don't usually play mount-reliant characters. I prefer the "all-in-one package" type character. Cuts down on the time my turn takes.
As a GM, my players have never tried to play mount-reliant characters. I guess I'm not much help then. However, I would definitely take the opportunity to attack a mount, the same for animal companions and eidolons. Definitely not in the first few sessions- the player is still getting used to their character at that point. But dismounting someone is a staple of medieval/ fantasy warfare. The bill polearm was pretty much invented for that purpose.
I was wondering, how often do you (as GM) attack / kill your players' mounts? Or, how often do you (as a player) have your mount attacked by GM run meanies?
My group has been hesitant to use mounts because of the general impression that mounts die quickly / easily and, I suspect, because they think I'm out to get them (they might be right on this last one).
As an ancillary question, one which is hard to really answer given its vague / open-ended nature, how often *should* a mount get killed and / or eaten by a mob? Do you GMs find that you prefer to ignore mounts? Or is mount-buying something your players do nightly (or more)?
Thanks,
JackDepends on the monster. Big dumb (or even mindless) carnivores will go for the biggest meal. This is the mount. Of course if something is hurting them, their attention can be drawn away, but first priority is delicious horsemeat.
The vampire monk could care less about the silly horse.
An extremely intelligent/wise creature might recognize the tactical value of a mount and therefore decide to take it out, but such a creature may also be aware of the potential for mounted combat to negate hits.
I try to play monsters at their INT/WIS, so tactics vary greatly if a cavalier shows up.
Predators do not go after the biggest meal. Predators prefer the young, the weak, and the old because they put up less of a fight. An intelligent creature would know the horse is weaker, but a dumb one would see the smaller humanoid as the weaker.
In Kingmaker, our group had a rough encounter with a "bad thing" early on. Thankfully, the DM was nice enough to let it slay and feed upon one of our mounts while we bravely ran away.
In RotRL's, none of my players use a mount. In fact, only on a hunting trip early on did they even use ride checks. We are now in Sins, so I am pretty certain no mounts for rest of campaign.
In the years before Pathfinder, mounts always seemed to die whenever it seemed reasonable. I never felt like a DM was targetting the horses. Though in some cases as a DM, I ~have~ targetted the horses with bandits. But once again, I felt it was a reasonable way for the bandits to work.
Greg
I've killed mounts on occasion, sometimes by accident, sometimes by design. Bulettes like horseflesh, as do griffons.
Seems like mounts do suffer a bit in Kingmaker though. We just lost a horse and the ranger's river cat companion to a beastie that ambushed us.
I'm guessing the Mounted Combat feat acts as, at least, a discouragement for attacking a PC's mount. Seeing as that an immediate action Ride check can result in completely negating an attack against the mount. But having never having dealt with mounted combat I cannot speak from practice or experience, I can only surmise that this would ward off most attacks on a mount.
Greetings, fellow travellers.
I DM a group through the Kingmaker AP and due to the wilderness theme (still in book 1), the mounts get attacked regularly by predators - they are usually some way off the fire and less well guarded.
My players go to great length to set up a secure shelter for their horses.
To counter this losses somewhat I have decided that the mounts have full hit dice and the toughness feat for free. I am also thinking about some kind of "level up"-scheme for them.
Ruyan.
Monsters target mount or cavalier basing on
1) situation
2) the attack used
But mounts are not immune to attacks. If appropriate, are attacked, and dropped.
So, in summary, NPC's should attack the mount:
When it feels right to do so
An opponent who launches an area attack will wipe out a mount quickly.
Fireballs and lightning bolts will hit both mount and rider.
Breath weapons and fear effects can also be deadly to a mount.
Some opponents (such as goblins) hate dogs and horses and will target them if possible.
It's not a bad idea for a rider to spend a few protective spells on the mount (like sheild or mage armor). A well trained mount might even be convinced to drink potions.
As a DM, you might target mounts if your BBEG is trying to escape and does not want to be run down and trampled. A well placed magic missile (of sufficient level) can stop a light mount cold.
Caltrops were originally designed as a defense against horses. Tanglefoot bags work well too.
I've never killed a mount in my games, not that I have targeted mount though. Just never actually outright killed the mount. I could go out of my way to do so though but that would be mean.
I was wondering, how often do you (as GM) attack / kill your players' mounts? Or, how often do you (as a player) have your mount attacked by GM run meanies?
My group has been hesitant to use mounts because of the general impression that mounts die quickly / easily and, I suspect, because they think I'm out to get them (they might be right on this last one).
As an ancillary question, one which is hard to really answer given its vague / open-ended nature, how often *should* a mount get killed and / or eaten by a mob? Do you GMs find that you prefer to ignore mounts? Or is mount-buying something your players do nightly (or more)?
Thanks,
Jack
There was a reason my old LG character used a mule as a mount. It had a decent amount of hit points, and was dirt cheap to replace.
The replace part came into account rather often.
Nobody in my home game has ever really used a mount in combat as far as I can recall. This is through several campaigns.
Unless you've got a mount that somehow levels with you, such as the paladin's mount or the old v3.5 Wild Cohort feat or similar, mounts need to be treated as disposable/expendable. The usual problem is the party must go somewhere the mount can't. Mounts left alone or with a single (NPC) handler often aren't there when the party returns.
|
I wouldn't be too reticent about attacking a Cavalier's mount, or a Paladin's, or a druid's animal companion for that matter. Those kinds of mounts level up with the PC. Honestly, if your cavalier starts with a heavy horse at level 1 (and he really should) then in short order his mount becomes a monster in its own right, possibly with more hit points than the Cavalier. :P
So basically - treat those kinds of mounts as just another PC on the table.
One of the PCs in my current game had a plain old bog-standard pack pony starting from level 1. The rest of the party were taking bets on how many sessions it would take for the poor beast to die. I tried to play it in as reasonable a manner as possible: it usually ran from combat (with the PC having to chase after it), kobolds tried to steal it in the middle of a fight, and it was attacked by an owlbear during combat when it got too close. It was knocked down to negative hit points on more than one occasion, but the party always took the time to heal it and get it on it's feet again. That may be because I am willing to hand-waive the encumbrance rules so long as the party has a pack animal around.
Ultimately, the PC had to sell it before taking an ocean journey. I imagine it has retired to a quiet life in the country now, regaling the younger ponies with tales of its adventurous exploits.
Ultimately, the PC had to sell it before taking an ocean journey. I imagine it has retired to a quiet life in the country now, regaling the younger ponies with tales of its adventurous exploits.
+1
how often *should* a mount get killed and / or eaten by a mob?
Planning on a Famine in Galt campaign, eh?
Currently playing in a Kingmaker game and we've reached the fourth module. After the first few levels most mounts just don't have the HP to keep up with even a single random encounter. Take into account that the nature of Kingmaker supports mounts as being a faster way to travel the long distances... but then you'll likely have to leave them outside the dungeon while you go in.
Such was our scenario. Our horses usually got snacked on while we were in the dungeon. Can I blame the DM? Not really, they are tasty and easy meals just tied to a tree outside. I can't blame a monster for taking a free meal any more than I can blame the human or otherwise intelligent opponent for removing an asset that provides such an advantage of mobility.
Point is, most normal mounts such as horses, camels, and other non-mountrous and non-mythical ones just cannot keep up with the numerical demand of higher level PCs. Couple that with the fact that they are understandably high priority targets for most anything and one thing becomes clear. Unless you are a cavalier (or maybe a paladin) standard mounts aren't worth the trouble.
Our group mostly walks everywhere now.
To answer the OP, I don't really know how often is appropriate to attempt to kill mounts. I would only do it as often as it would make sense. If taking out a mount increases chance of victory for a monster considerably (and they know that) then it's fair game. If the mounted PC is fighting goblins who are known to hate horses then, yes, that's fair game. Most big monsters go after mounts when they realize the couldn't catch the character otherwise.
That said, after a while I'd rather be nice and have a foe opt to unseat the PC and have the horse run off for a short time (safely out of combat).
I kill mounts with disturbing frequency.
+ 1
For us, we count simply see the mundane mounts as a way of overcoming having to walk/carry all our stuff.
We attack enemy mounts and they attack ours - of course, if there's a sane reason for doing so.
Typically we get smart humanoids dropping the 'soft' mount from under the cleric or the fighter, normally when we're travelling.
Likewise, if we're jumping folk we try to drop the mounts if it will prevent some dude fleeing for reenforcement.
No tears so far - tho we've had 'lucky' mounts that have become treasures in their own right. When they dir or even threatened with death, their are cries of horror at the table!
My players and I have an informal understanding that if you've paid for a horse, you've got a horse - if your horse dies a messy death (and it will), you might find another horse, steal a horse, be given a horse by your patron / church, or any number of other things to replace your deceased wealth.Companion. I meant, deceased companion.
+1
We tend to rewards folk who are looking to steal/liberate/buy/borrow a mount with a mount, context permitting.
::
Familiars tho, even with the rules update reducing the penalties of their death, are SACRED - all kinds of cries and moans if one gets targeted.
Even if the sod is being used top cast Vampiric Touch.
-.o!
In my last campaign, my players left their mounts alone in the forest near a gateway to the Fey realm, and I had a satyr come along and impregnate one of the horses. Sadly, the party druid figured it out before the mare gave birth, and they killed the horse.
But usually, I don't mess with mounts too much.
The groups I've been with have always seemed to have an unspoken rule of "if you use it in combat, it can get killed".
This applies to familiars, special mounts, not so special mounts, or whatever.
So.. If you have a mount and you use it to avoid attacks with ride checks, or to hoof plant someone into the dirt then expect them to come and attack it. If however you've left a porter and a few horses back at the "dungeon entrance" then you can expect them to be OK when you come back (unless you did something stupid- like leave them there unprotected while you are actively being chased, or whatnot).
He who uses the familiar to make a touch attack deserves to have the familiar eaten and turned into fertilizer ;p such is the risk of a combat familiar.
-S
edited for spelling. doh!
|
As a DM, I've attacked mounts when I thought they were easier targets than the character riding them, but generally, they'd prefer the PCs.
Attacking a mount is like trying to sunder a weapon. *shrug*
As a player, my Animal Companion not only outlived his Ranger, he avenged him by taking down the flying enemy. The Ranger was later reincarnated, but still, pretty cool.
Generally, my DM plays the monsters smart. He attacks whoever's doing a good job of hurting the bad guys and chooses randomly if it's no one in particular. If the target is a mount, the mount takes a beating. Never seen one die, though. (Smart Paladins usually dismiss their Mounts before they get whacked if at all possible.)
|
|
Such was our scenario. Our horses usually got snacked on while we were in the dungeon. Can I blame the DM? Not really, they are tasty and easy meals just tied to a tree outside. I can't blame a monster for taking a free meal any more than I can blame the human or otherwise intelligent opponent for removing an asset that provides such an advantage of mobility.
Point is, most normal mounts such as horses, camels, and other non-mountrous and non-mythical ones just cannot keep up with the numerical demand of higher level PCs. Couple that with the fact that they are understandably high priority targets for most anything and one thing becomes clear. Unless you are a cavalier (or maybe a paladin) standard mounts aren't worth the trouble.
Our group mostly walks everywhere now.
How are you leaving your horses outside the dungeon? Just tying them up? This is the kind of thing hirelings and henchmen were designed for - your party needs to get themselves a few squires and guards to look after the horses for you when you go below.
Also - as has been mentioned often, the Leadership feat is a great way to get hold of a survivable mount - either a monster or a mundane creature with sufficient hit dice so that it won't fall over too easily. (This assumes that you aren't a druid or ranger or cavalier, etc.) Plus, you get a few other low-level followers to act as grooms or squires or what have you.
For once, it would be nice to think that you could have the #1 mode of transport in the era in which we play without having to worry about the DM killing them ... yes, the DM, not the monsters.
Let's think about this a minute ...
As a player, have you ever gotten the unsettling feeling that you have the worst possible luck than anyone else on the planet?
How is it that commoners, peasants, caravans, etc, can actually leave the walls of a city, till their fields, travel the roads, and not get attacked or killed nearly as often as PCs, yet it seems the moment your party leaves town, it all hits the fan?
If NPCs had the same or similar luck, PC races would be near-extinct in no time.
Just an observation.
.
..
...
....
......
How is it that commoners, peasants, caravans, etc, can actually leave the walls of a city, till their fields, travel the roads, and not get attacked or killed nearly as often as PCs,
..we're keeping them there fields safe for those filthy peasants.
...yet it seems the moment your party leaves town, it all hits the fan?
..because we're needed to keep them there fields safe for those filthy peasants!
::
Personally, when I consider how the typical 'mundane' NPC faces up to a raging orc, I consider the Lvl X adventures armed with their arsenal-of-doom to be the lucky ones! :)
::
Quasi-serious: Ok ok, but this kinda thing is about.. whats that long ass word.. verisimilitude.. that the DM should be attempting to sustain. With our lot, folk don't leave the sight of the city walls - those that do become adventure hooks.
..and the characters are the crazies who actively go out into the wilds/bad places -- hence their interesting lives.
I think it could be "Dm Adversary" thing but really- where are the farmers *going*? they are going to.. their farm. Around their town.. that they've already cleared and such.
You are going out into the wilds and wilderness and leaving your horses.. outside the orc fort or goblin cave, or ancient whatever's burial mound.
The farmers and commoners and such don't go wander there, stake out their horses, and then go inside for a poke around. They find it, and run the bleep away to notify the authorities. (or they get eaten and never heard from again).
I'm not *against* the DM murdering animals we leave outside the dungeon.. its just not something any DM I've had thought was worth doing because all it would really do would be to have us take up time hiring someone to watch them, which means going back to town to replace them etc.. rather than getting on with the story/plot.
And all that becomes irrelevant later with bags of holding and whatnot. (and fly spells, magic carpets, whateaver- depending on your level of play).
-S
|
Mounts can be very powerful adversaries when done properly. A friend of mine had a paladin and his mount managed to take out an evil cleric and her 3 zombie cronies. But was unable to do anything about the ghost. And his mount at the time was just a horse. He now uses a mammoth and the thing kicks butt. But it really all depends on the player and GM.
If you're going out of your way to take down a mount/animal companion/familar then IMO you're being a little harsh. But if the player has their furry friend in combat and the thing is doing more damage then everything around it then yes, perfectly acceptable target. But one should not just go directly for the animal.
Many classes are given a mount/animal companion/familiar for a reason. It is not something for the GM to pick on just because it's easy to kill. Doing so can lead to GM/player strife and this should not be something a GM should be out to do.
.
...
Quasi-serious: Ok ok, but this kinda thing is about.. whats that long ass word.. verisimilitude.. that the DM should be attempting to sustain. With our lot, folk don't leave the sight of the city walls - those that do become adventure hooks...and the characters are the crazies who actively go out into the wilds/bad places -- hence their interesting lives.
Good answer. The suspension of disbelief is important, at least to me, and, in reality, horses are harmless without their riders. Most intelligent monsters would know this.
In combat, they should want to dismount a rider and beat the snot out of him, not waste attacks on his horse, allowing him shots on them. Only as a last resort should the mount be the target of attacks.
Horses were considered prized spoils of war.
I was wondering, how often do you (as GM) attack / kill your players' mounts?A DM's job is to role-play the NPCs and this doesn't stop when initiative is rolled.
Run each monster according to its motives and goals rather than seeing it as a board game/strategy game. You'll find that your game improves for it.
-James
+1
The OP's question, and many (admittedly not all) the responses to it, both from the GM and player POV, go to the core of one of my gaming pet peeves: they sound like a discussion not of an RPG, but of a skirmish-level fantasy wargame. Whether or not to kill a mount/pet/animal companion/familiar, and if you do, how ruthlessly you should pursue that goal, really should involve storytelling considerations beyond just the tactical merits of doing so. But this isn't entirely the fault of GM's -- their approach is in part a response to how players PLAY their animal sidekicks. If a PC has a special mount, animal companion, etc., and they really do play up the companionship aspect of it, out of combat, roleplaying out how the PC cares for the animal, develops a bond, and looks out for its well being, the animal should be treated as an extension of the PC, and any GM who intentionally makes it expendable, killing it too easily, is a jerk. On the other hand, if a player simply views the animal sidekick as an additional game mechanic to be used to m,ake his character more powerful, well, that's just ASKING for it to be targeted.
I have to admit, I'm sort of biased, I had a bad experience with this particular issue while gaming my very first D&D character (back in 2ed). I was playing a ranger, and after reading up on how they got along with animals, I started out the game with him having a dog, intending to play up the relationship between the two. Sure enough, the very first combat, the DM made sure that his dog was killed at the onset. I know, seems silly and petty to get mad about that, but the thing was, I had played other RPG's, and had already developed a habit of putting a lot of thought and effort into getting into character. To the DM, it was just another way to mess with my character. I pretty much signed off of using animal companions or familiars until just recently, when I decided to once again play a ranger (in PF this time). Different, much better GM. The ranger is only L2, but he has purchased a horse which will eventually be converted into his animal companion at the appropriate level. Meanwhile, the bond is being roleplayed -- when he comes into town to restock, his first stop is always the Farrier, he has the MOunted Combat feat specifically to protect his mount in case of surprise attack, etc. The point is, while I may have him fight occasionally on horseback, he will not be reckless with his mount's life, and I don't tink it unreasonable for my GM to honor that by taking the approach James just expressed.
I generally consider mounts in one of two roles: transport and combatants. If it's a combatant (trained horse for example) then it's fair game to go after. If it's just a transport mechanism then I generally don't unless the enemy has a particularly strong reason to go after them.
Having said that, though, my players over the years have lost innumerable mounts, mainly due to heading off into dungeons and leaving the mounts outside where they either ran off or got eaten by wandering monsters. My players generally consider mounts to be worthwhile gold sinks. They realize they are temporary and will have to be replaced every so often.
How are you leaving your horses outside the dungeon? Just tying them up? This is the kind of thing hirelings and henchmen were designed for - your party needs to get themselves a few squires and guards to look after the horses for you when you go below.
That might work in a safer area but this is Kingmaker I'm talking about, where trolls and will-o-the-wisps and other nasty CR 6-8 random encounters happen on a fairly frequent basis (whether you're inside the dungeon or outside with the horses). Either we tie up the horses and they get eaten or we don't and they run off when the troll shows up and are never to be seen again. A few hirelings and henchmen are -not- going to stop rampaging trolls. The best they'll do is attract more attention and provide for a larger meal.
NPC guards are no match against such foes, in several areas the AP makes sure to emphasize this fact. KM seems to have developed some notoriety as being brutal for its random encounters.
Honestly, at the levels we are currently at it is much easier to just use magic and good old reliable walking than have a whole baggage train to babysit. We'd rather not have to deal with the pain of logistics to carry around a small army just to protect some horses. Leadership feat might be useful for a cohort, sure, but none of us would want to risk blowing a feat just to have the cohort end up getting eaten too.
|
|
That might work in a safer area but this is Kingmaker I'm talking about, where trolls and will-o-the-wisps and other nasty CR 6-8 random encounters happen on a fairly frequent basis (whether you're inside the dungeon or outside with the horses).
Well, if I was your DM, I'd let you get away with it. A few animal handlers can safely get the mounts and pack animals away from the bad guys and at least hide out somewhere while waiting for the party to emerge.
Just me personally I like the idea of a baggage train - a dozen stout men at arms and a captain, plus a few porters, and you should be able to set an encampment that can deal the odd troll or ogre while the heroes are dungeon-delving. Just so long as a dragon or some other ridiculous thing doesn't come by, they should be safe enough.
Heck, even Captain Mal Reynolds shoots a horse!!!
Does anyone here read Joe Abercrombie's "The First Law" series?
In the second book, a band of heroes travels across endless plains on horseback for months. They fight off various threats, recover from greivous injuries and insanities etc. They finally get to the mountains, a knight bids farewell to his trusty mount, then his rangery ally stabs it in the neck!!!!!! She was like, horses are good eating.
I was w
Predators do not go after the biggest meal. Predators prefer the young, the weak, and the old because they put up less of a fight. An intelligent creature would know the horse is weaker, but a dumb one would see the smaller humanoid as the weaker.Real world, that is for the most part true. In a fantasy world..not always so much.
Well, if I was your DM, I'd let you get away with it.
Must be nice to play in your games :P
But in all seriousness I think it's a small price to pay to have a DM that doesn't pull punches. I may be a little masochistic here but I can appreciate the hard-mode that comes with him not cheapening the rough and brutal portrayal of the wilderness. It's dangerous out there and it shows!
Just me personally I like the idea of a baggage train - a dozen stout men at arms and a captain, plus a few porters, and you should be able to set an encampment...
I do as well. I think it would be interesting to do the whole frontier-expedition-quest thing but as it stands my group seems to be favoring mobility and subtlety over safety in numbers. Hey, if you can pull of the spirit of such an adventure then more power to ya!
I personally just wish that, on the whole, horses would seem more like assets than liabilities. The incredibly low staying power is what makes them near useless in later levels. I know the cavalier has an easier time but I shouldn't have to play a class I may not want to just to keep my mount from dying every time I turn around.
|
|
I do as well. I think it would be interesting to do the whole frontier-expedition-quest thing but as it stands my group seems to be favoring mobility and subtlety over safety in numbers.
You could try bringing it up with the other people in your group. The idea of establishing fortified base camps, or watchtowers, with armed supply-lines, etc. is usually "not done" in modern Pathfinder or D&D, even though that kind of thing was actually expected back in the days of 1st edition, and a lot of early modules assumed you had a few redshirts hanging around. It's a different style of play, maybe they'd be willing to give it a try for a while.
I personally just wish that, on the whole, horses would seem more like assets than liabilities. The incredibly low staying power is what makes them near useless in later levels. I know the cavalier has an easier time but I shouldn't have to play a class I may not want to just to keep my mount from dying every time I turn around.
Since it's heroic fantasy, it helps to think in terms of heroic mounts. Great heroes don't just ride around on any old horses - they have champion steeds, monstrous mounts, or magical companion beasts. Past a certain level, if you want a mount that is suited to you and will grow with your PC, you NEED to get it either from a class feature, or by taking the leadership feat (your mount is the cohort), or a spell, or by some sort of GM fiat (which I think a lot of GMs will find ways to accommodate, since it opens up new kinds of encounters for them to design). Normal off-the-rack horses are for carrying low-level PCs, NPCs, and hauling carts.
I was wondering, how often do you (as GM) attack / kill your players' mounts? Or, how often do you (as a player) have your mount attacked by GM run meanies?
My group has been hesitant to use mounts because of the general impression that mounts die quickly / easily and, I suspect, because they think I'm out to get them (they might be right on this last one).
As an ancillary question, one which is hard to really answer given its vague / open-ended nature, how often *should* a mount get killed and / or eaten by a mob? Do you GMs find that you prefer to ignore mounts? Or is mount-buying something your players do nightly (or more)?
Thanks,
Jack
My GM tries to play monsters properly. Trolls and bulettes usually attack us because they're hungry, and the mounts have more meat than the humanoids. More intelligent creatures that have beef with us will attack us directly and leave our mounts alone. The PCs don't go out of their way to protect their mounts, especially when it's a choice between them or the rides.
That said, the gnome bard in my group is on her fourth riding dog. The eldritch knight has moved on to using the Mount spell. The cleric befriended a giant eagle and now uses that as her mount. My character, another bard, relies on the Phantom Steed spell. For what it's worth, the bards try not to step on each other toes as far as spells and abilities go.
The GM, after noticing how squishy mounts are when faced by fireballs and hungry trolls, started heavily suggesting the Leadership feat for intelligent, stronger mounts or relying on spells for daily transportation. I know I get dropped on my ass every time my Phantom Steed gets hit and vanishes, but at least I can conjure one up the next morning without worries.
I would say how often a mount *should* be killed is dependent upon the monsters the PCs face. If it's a lot of drow or ghosts, then there shouldn't be any big deals. I would think most intelligents would try to stop the PCs rather than hurt their speed. If they're going to be fighting a lot of big, dumb monsters that are primarily motivated by food, then there should be an issue with mount longevity.
I don't think mounts going in and out are a big concern unless you're a long way from home and just lose it at that point. My group's going through Kingmaker, so the real drawback is moving more slowly through hexes and running into more enemies.
Hope this helps!
My dwarven druids pony gets whacked at fairly often. He's been scorching rayed, fire balled, charmed, stabed, hacked, and sliced.
Lets just say the dm is not making stablilization checks after that happens.
Point is, most normal mounts such as horses, camels, and other non-mountrous and non-mythical ones just cannot keep up with the numerical demand of higher level PCs. Couple that with the fact that they are understandably high priority targets for most anything and one thing becomes clear. Unless you are a cavalier (or maybe a paladin) standard mounts aren't worth the trouble.
These are the following ways to get around that. This has been particularly frustrating for the mounted fighter kit in the apg.
-Paladin with mount option
-Cavalier
-Druid with animal companion (horse.. pffft.. i ride a velociraptor!)
-Oracle of nature (gets animal companion)
-Cleric with the animal domain (gets animal companion at -3 levels, can get a feat to negate the -3)
-Ranger (gets animal companion at -3 levels, can get a feat to negate the -3)
-Use a wildshaped druid AS the animal companion. Have a druid grab combat casting , natural spell and turn into a mount for the parties fighter. A physical druid makes a superior mount that can cast healing spells on both itself and the rider. in 3.0 wizards could do this as well.
Also, it should be noted that the Mounted Combat feat is an immediate action.
Once per round when your mount is hit in combat, you may attempt a Ride check (as an immediate action) to negate the hit. The hit is negated if your Ride check result is greater than the opponent's attack roll.
Not only is it once per round, it consumes your immediate/swift action for the turn.
You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn).
There are several feats and abilities that are activated as swift actions, and if you negate a hit on your mount, you can't do any of them on your next turn.
One good example is using your mount as cover. With an immediate action, you make a DC 15 Ride check and drop down to the side of your mount, gaining +4 to your AC. You can't do this and also negate a hit on your mount.
So basically, if there is a team of organized goblins or whatever, and they want horse meat, they can get it. The rider can only negate the first hit, if they all have shortbows, arrows are going to get through.
Also, be sure to make your players apply their AC penalty on their Ride checks. Having it as a class skill, with 5 ranks and a +2 DEX only makes a +10 Ride. That fighter in Banded Mail and a Heavy Shield takes a -9 to the check, for a grand total of a +1.
He probably won't even be able to control the mount in combat with a bonus like that, let alone negate a hit.