|
In general, yes attacks should be directed rather often at the mount.
Intelligent enemies know that a mounted-specialized lancer is going to be far less dangerous if the horse is taken out from under him.
Non-intelligent enemies aren't going to recognize the difference between mount and rider, and will sometimes direct attacks at the mount because it's simply the larger center of mass of the combined 'creature' that is mount and rider.
Furthermore, it gives mounted combat characters a chance to actually use their Mounted Combat feat and bring it out of simply being an otherwise useless chain prerequisite.
|
1. The mount making a pounce can make a full attack if capable. The rider gets one attack. The rider would need a special ability that he uses himself (in the example, the mount and rider are charging, but the rider is not actually making a charge action, only directing the mount and attacking) which overrides the general rule.
2. You seem to have an understanding of what blindness will do.
3. The mount and rider are two creatures that act in unison on the same initiative. The rider can even make move actions while the mount is moving. If something stops the mount (it is killed by a spear readied against the charge), they both stop.
4. How 'bout a pegasus? It could be harder to get (but perhaps cheaper). Still, you get what you pay for...
5. Dessio seems spot on with this.
1.
So higher level gaze attacks (if not blinded) and higher level area attacks (e.g. dragons breath) kill it. Paladin and Cavalier have improved mounts, therefore theirs survive more likely. But can other classes employ mounts nonetheless in combat, e.g. by getting horses with more HD or equipment, without wasting thousands in real magic equipment?
I'd looked into this a while ago, and it came down to--those classes receive a mount as part of a class feature. If I wanted to offer it to other classes, I'd need to trade something for it. Given the power and flexibility a mount offers, it would need to be more than a single feat. Two is probably about right, or to treat it as an archetype and have them trade out a class feature for what in, in essence, another class feature.
There are a number of archetypes ingame that offer mounts. These would probably be a good place to start as to finding what's appropriate.
This is a general rule not tied to charge or actions in any way. One meele attack if moving more than 5 ft. How is the argument, that one can pounce and have full attack?
-Because specific rules trump general ones. The mounts movement is being treated mostly as your movement, and if you move further than 5 feet you can't attack twice. Pounce changes that.
2. What effect does blindness of mount have?
Sounds about right
E.g. Charge against 2 mummies (CR 7), when horse and rider within 30 ft(so before attack unless ridiculously enlarged rider and horse) 2 will saves vs 16. Rider makes saves, horse fails one, is paralyzed for 2 rounds. Charge continues or stops?
The charge stops. Interrupted actions are not covered very well by the rules, I would allow the rider to continue with any actions they had left.
I might also decide on a ride check to avoid a wile coyotesque pole vault over the horses front.
So higher level gaze attacks (if not blinded) and higher level area attacks (e.g. dragons breath) kill it.
Yes. If you're bringing a regular mount into a dungeon after level 5 you may as well glaze it in bbq sauce and plop an apple into its mouth.
Paladin and Cavalier have improved mounts, therefore theirs survive more likely. But can other classes employ mounts nonetheless in combat, e.g. by getting horses with more HD or...
If the DM allows leadership yes, otherwise its hard.
You can have another player act as a mount. If a druid or synthesist summoner really likes you you can ride them. A druid in dire cat form with a charging lancer on their back will pretty much end an encounter in one shot.
5. Do normal intelligent and wise enemies understand the game mechanics intuitively so far, that they know that against experienced enemies the rule is "Shoot the horse."? []
Medieval peasants figured it out, so yes.
6. Gaze attacks can averted by avoiding looking at the creature, thereby the creature gains total concealment. Can a rider control his horse to avert eyes?
If thats all he's doing or he wants to run the other way then yes. If he wants to charge i would say no.
|
Whatever its plausibility, for a GM to aim at the mount in order to kill it is essentially aiming at ruining the fun of the mounted character. It is akin to sundering a fighter's weapon or a wizard's spell components' pouch.
I am not saying that it must never be done. Just that it is better used sparingly.
Furthermore, it gives mounted combat characters a chance to actually use their Mounted Combat feat and bring it out of simply being an otherwise useless chain prerequisite.
If it's all the same to you, I very much prefer that enemies take their attacks on me rather than at my squishy mount, even if it means that one of my feats is only a "useless chain requisite".
Otherwise, I will quickly end up with a dead mount, which will also make Mounted Combat useless, as well as the rest of my Mounted chain feats.
So upon what knowledge might a NPC decide correctly that the medium sized medium armor wearing raging level 8 barb is as a target harder than the heavy armored 3 HD horse? They do not have their AC printed on forehead and certainly not their HP.
The horse is the larger target and easier to hit ..
In game the horse barding is optically as good as the riders armor (save magical bonuses, but one cannot see them). So the information upon which enemies decide to target the horse is not "I see its easier to harm the horse.", but "I am a CR8 encounter, so that rider will be at least level 5, his armor will be magical and he will have far more HP than the horse, so better attack the horse."
That people enchant armor and buy armor boosting items is in game knowledge.
Since there is an in game tendency for characters to pile such enhancements on themselves more than their horse, people would be aware of this tendency and then aim for the horse.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
The horse is the larger target and easier to hit ..
So upon what knowledge might a NPC decide correctly that the medium sized medium armor wearing raging level 8 barb is as a target harder than the heavy armored 3 HD horse? They do not have their AC printed on forehead and certainly not their HP.And has in real life more hp and more musles aka natural armor. After killing the horse battle is not won, after killing the rider it is.
If it takes 2 arrow to stop rider and 5 to stop horse, why shoot the horse?
Because killing the mount will make the rider less effective in combat.
Think about it. If a mounted rider has already charged by once and done great damage and the NPC has been unable to hit him while mounted, it might occur to them that killing his mount may even the odds a bit.
Mount a synthesist.
Then only the crazy would target it.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Because killing the mount will make the rider less effective in combat.
Think about it. If a mounted rider has already charged by once and done great damage and the NPC has been unable to hit him while mounted, it might occur to them that killing his mount may even the odds a bit.
Of course after some atempts they realize the guy on horse is harder to kill than the horse. But then it might be too late.
It should be some check related to combat experience to know, if rider is a lot harder target than horse. One should be able to notice from combat behavior (e.g. a high CMD has to show in respective movements and positioning, you cannot avoid being grappled by a titan by being stronger). Sense motives would be fitting, but its wrong because an experienced fighter would know without being trained, whether the rider is pro or not.
Experience is definitely a big factor here. I would think any NPC with levels in a Martial Class (Warrior, Fighter, etc.) would know some basic tactics that would work against a mounted opponent, even if they are just some basic "use reach weapons and stay out of the open"-type strategies.
If you think a check would be necessary for non-martial characters (or inexperienced ones), I would look for a Knowledge skill. Is there a Knowledge (Tactics) skill? I don't think there is one RAW, but it may be an interesting skill to add for home campaigns. Otherwise, I like the Sense Motive idea. It would probably require a flat DC, as I'm not sure what skill would be appropriate for an opposed check.
You could also make the case that the NPCs will react based on the weapons at their disposal:
* If they have spears/polearms, they may try to unseat the rider.
* If all they have are short swords, they may go for the horse simply because they can't reach the rider.
* If they have access to a net, they could try to entangle rider and horse together.
* Tanglefoot Bags are also a nice option to stop a charge.
In any case, there are a lot of factors involved in devising a strategy for mounted opponents (moreso that there are for infantry), so from a rules perspective, I believe you'd have to rely on your GM for a lot of these grey areas.