Riding became a skill, and therefore a resource. And unless time is an issue, most characters won't spend resources on travel.
I think it's kind of a breakdown of the "social contract" of gaming. Some people assume if you buy a mount the GM will try to screw you out of it somehow - stolen or eaten by a monster the first time you leave it alone.
I did use to have a donkey though. His name was "Dapple."
Basically what Sarc said. If something happens to your horse that's a few hundred GP down the drain. A few hundred GP that could otherwise be spent on potions or equipment to prevent you from dying, and not give the GM/the enemies another target you'd have to protect.
There's also the issue of the animals being unable to travel certain places, which is just further headache that can be avoided by, again, spending the money in other places.
The game world is suppoed to work similar the real world so you can have somewhat of an understanding of what could happen.
Leaving mounts outside a 'dungeon' for hours or days and your just asking for problems.
I dunno about that Jacob. I've never done anything with horses but I would assume (from Bonanza and Gunsmoke) that when you're out in the middle of nowhere you can pretty much just leave the horses to their own devices and not worry about anybody stumbling on them and stealing them. Days maybe, but not hours.
It's analogous I guess to not bothering to lock your car. Depends on the neighborhood.
|
The game world is suppoed to work similar the real world so you can have somewhat of an understanding of what could happen.
Leaving mounts outside a 'dungeon' for hours or days and your just asking for problems.
I dunno about that Jacob. I've never done anything with horses but I would assume (from Bonanza and Gunsmoke) that when you're out in the middle of nowhere you can pretty much just leave the horses to their own devices and not worry about anybody stumbling on them and stealing them. Days maybe, but not hours.
It's analogous I guess to not bothering to lock your car. Depends on the neighborhood.
You do have to take into account that there are monsters in a fantasy game setting above and beyond the usual haazards (wolf, lions, etc). I not saying that something will happen everytime but it could happen. Thats what hireling or henchmen are for, to guard the camp and animals. Of course with the WBL as it is, thats another expense.
They'd just kill / eat the hirelings and henchmen, too. In for a penny, in for a pound.
We usually have horses wagons etc and npcs to care for them and help set up camp
Is there a standing order or otherwise standard procedure for what happens if they are imperiled? Has it ever happened before?
We usually have horses wagons etc and npcs to care for them and help set up camp
This is fairly standard for most of the parties I've run or been in as well, once we/they can afford such things. The NPCs are there to make sure that the horses are fed and take care of the base camp, not fight off an army. And yes, there are times that the dice gods have been angry and they've died. And there has been times I/they have come back to find extra gear and treasure acquired by the NPCs.
|
|
We usually have horses wagons etc and npcs to care for them and help set up campThis is fairly standard for most of the parties I've run or been in as well, once we/they can afford such things. The NPCs are there to make sure that the horses are fed and take care of the base camp, not fight off an army. And yes, there are times that the dice gods have been angry and they've died. And there has been times I/they have come back to find extra gear and treasure acquired by the NPCs.
Pretty much this.
And if your a really good boss you gift the NPC's with the extra treasure as a job well done.
And if you come back and find disaster, when you get back to civilization you pay a wergild to the families of the NPCs.
*shrug* My group have always been more of the mindset of "Why bring someone out who can't keep up with the group when we can take care of the problem ourselves?" This includes both mounts (can get a better one with magic anyway) and minions/underlings/assistants. Less expense, less danger, and less opportunity to tick off NPCs by reporting back "Sorry your (insert relation here) got killed while we were doing something else".
Because the players don't have to walk to the dungeon.
In KM our GM had all kinds of things come out of the woods to try and eat our damn horses....It got old fast and eventually he stopped targetting them relentlessly.
See this is why my philosophy is you don't do anything to discourage PCs from wasting gold. You want mounts? As long as they're not adding anything to your combat effectiveness, spend as much as you want... how about a whole wagon train? ;)
They'd just kill / eat the hirelings and henchmen, too. In for a penny, in for a pound.
That is why 1st level characters shouldn't be allowed to go out and campaign should always start by characters doing houseworks for their moms until they are atleast on 5th level.
You say that in jest but I've not started a game at 1st level for almost eight years now =) 2nd level, bare minimum. 1st-level characters are just too fragile for my tastes, regardless which side of the GM screen I'm on.
I've never understood how.
|
We usually have horses wagons etc and npcs to care for them and help set up campIs there a standing order or otherwise standard procedure for what happens if they are imperiled? Has it ever happened before?
My party does have a couple of exotic mounts and those do help. also Dm not being a douche helps. Fights are upped to challenge the higher level pcs but the everyday predators are the same from level 1 to the end. That said i do like the mount spell to go to areas that i do not want to risk my pets
@ Orthos I like the limited-resource game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1st level is less "challenging" and more "swingy".
A game is not difficult if the computer has a 5% chance of just winning immediately, no skill required.
Likewise, the game is not difficult just because the Orc has a 5% chance to crit you and kill you instantly. It's just swingy.
|
In KM our GM had all kinds of things come out of the woods to try and eat our damn horses....It got old fast and eventually he stopped targetting them relentlessly.See this is why my philosophy is you don't do anything to discourage PCs from wasting gold. You want mounts? As long as they're not adding anything to your combat effectiveness, spend as much as you want... how about a whole wagon train? ;)
He is an old grognard and any chance you have to hit a PC below the belt you do so. I dont mind the resource game at all. In fact combat as war I would say is neccesary to my RPG experience but there are limits. For him it was all about survival and any weakness would be exploited. Expect to be ambushed and killed if you went to the out house without holding the clerics hand. There was a bit of an adjustment period but we got him to lighten up. He prefers to play to GM so its worked it self out.
I like first level its fun. I relaize its "nintendo hard" but despite that I still enjoy the experience. Since I usually run urban games they tend to be a little more forgiving at level 1 as well.
|
|
1st level is less "challenging" and more "swingy".
A game is not difficult if the computer has a 5% chance of just winning immediately, no skill required.
Likewise, the game is not difficult just because the Orc has a 5% chance to crit you and kill you instantly. It's just swingy.
You could say this about 2nd and even 3rd level characters, although 3rd level martials have a chance of surviving.
All depends on the weapon used and str mod of the opponent.
As I mentioned in another thread, I started out with a DM who was not happy unless most of the pack animals died at least once per session. So I have rarely, if ever, pulled the kill-the-animals move on my players (and even then, only when the hardcase amongst them INSISTED I kill untended animals because it was more "realistic" and if I didn't, then I was being "too soft").
I think one of the big reasons why PCs don't get around on horses as much as in the old days, is what you might call the Lord of the Rings effect. Tolkien's heroes got around mostly (not always) on foot. And when on foot, you have more time to get into more adventures because you meet more stuff along the way, rather than riding right by it. More adventures builds a more interesting campaign.
In short, you get more adventure per square mile when the journey takes longer. So a creative GM might encourage going about on foot so he can squeeze more of his ideas into the game. I know I have been guilty of this. So perhaps an increasing number of homebrew campaigns has led to a decreasing prominence of horses in the game in general.
Might also have to do with the traditional role of the local inn/town/base of operations. A lot of premade adventures feature locations just outside of town, or otherwise within walking distance. Add to that the increasing number of urban adventures wherein the PCs are "in town" a lot. After all, not a lot of folks visiting New York City rent cars to get around. They mostly hail cabs.
Near the beginning of Second Darkness, we needed horses to get from one area to another. You don't NEED the ride skill unless you plan on taking your mounts into combat. It's one of those skills to eventually put 1 point into. BTW, we have always started our characters off at 1st level. This is 3.x and before.
|
|
As I mentioned in another thread, I started out with a DM who was not happy unless most of the pack animals died at least once per session. So I have rarely, if ever, pulled the kill-the-animals move on my players (and even then, only when the hardcase amongst them INSISTED I kill untended animals because it was more "realistic" and if I didn't, then I was being "too soft").
I think one of the big reasons why PCs don't get around on horses as much as in the old days, is what you might call the Lord of the Rings effect. Tolkien's heroes got around mostly (not always) on foot. And when on foot, you have more time to get into more adventures because you meet more stuff along the way, rather than riding right by it. More adventures builds a more interesting campaign.
In short, you get more adventure per square mile when the journey takes longer. So a creative GM might encourage going about on foot so he can squeeze more of his ideas into the game. I know I have been guilty of this. So perhaps an increasing number of homebrew campaigns has led to a decreasing prominence of horses in the game in general.
Might also have to do with the traditional role of the local inn/town/base of operations. A lot of premade adventures feature locations just outside of town, or otherwise within walking distance. Add to that the increasing number of urban adventures wherein the PCs are "in town" a lot. After all, not a lot of folks visiting New York City rent cars to get around. They mostly hail cabs.
I think your old GM and mine should get together and go bowling. I remember the first time he killed our mounts. We were out in the wilderness camping. Owlbear attacked our camp starting with the horses. Afterwards we were like, "what the hell man?" He explained the owlbear was looking for a meal. Made sense at the time. Then we lost a horse to a bear trap. Another to cold weather. Got ambushed by a manticore, etc etc.. Eventually he admitted hes a "horse killing GM". We were not amused but it was just the beginning of a long pattern of him using our PCs as punching bags for his sick game of D&D Saw edition. We had it out a few times and hes backed off since. A great player and good friend I am glad we worked out the differences.
I only have 1 character that rides as a primary form of movement, and that's because it's a gnome oracle with the lame curse. Otherwise, my characters either use horses/donkeys to carry their stuff or don't use them at all. My GM's have ruled that it's a 20 DC ride check to move a mount towards the enemy in battle, it's just not worth it.
I've never understood how.Do you like everything set on easy mod? Just a question not trying to be derogatory. For me when things are challanging is when its most fun.
I don't consider "oh, I critted, you're going to die no matter what so I'm not going to even bother rolling damage" to be the entertaining kind of challenging. I'm speaking as the guy who GMs 90% of the time. (Though I don't like it any more when I'm playerside. Thankfully my group agrees with me on "1st level is no fun" so none of us starts a game lower than 2nd, so I don't have to worry about that the rare times I do play.)
I don't like it when there's a chance you can die/you can kill the PCs at any given moment through no fault of your/their own and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
@ Orthos I like the limited-resource game.
Yeah I've never seen the entertainment in "Oregon Trail: RPG Edition" myself. To each their own I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I've never seen the entertainment in "Oregon Trail: RPG Edition" myself. To each their own I guess.
And I would totally play an Oregon Trail RPG!
/Odd Couple theme plays
Yeah I've never seen the entertainment in "Oregon Trail: RPG Edition" myself. To each their own I guess.And I would totally play an Oregon Trail RPG!
/Odd Couple theme plays
*snerk*
As a GM, I don't care if my players want mounts or not. It's up to them to decide how fast they want to get from point A to point B and whether they want to increase their overall carrying capacity or not.
There's no issue for riding equine mounts as the Ride skill explicitly states, "Typical riding actions don't require checks. You can saddle, mount, ride, and dismount from a mount without a problem." On top of that, the base chance to remain in the saddle if the mount is scared/bolts is 75% in favor of the rider (drops to about a 45% chance to stay in saddle if wearing full plate). Additionally, I generally don't cause mounts to bolt unless a monster-monster (magical beasts, animal-predators, but not human bandits) attacks within ~10-15 ft of the mount in question.
I don't specifically target mounts, either. But I do try to play enemies of the PCs appropriately. If the party is ambushed by a pack of Deinonychus, the raptors will typically attack the horses until they take damage from a PC at which point the creature now has a threat to deal with instead of a meal. If cornered the untrained mounts will attack back on their turn and if not cornered then they will flee (and at worst it takes an hour or so search time at max to retrieve the mount unless I have some other story-element to change this).
So it's up to the players to get the attacking creatures off their mounts and poking the creatures with sharp objects is a good start.
I only have 1 character that rides as a primary form of movement, and that's because it's a gnome oracle with the lame curse. Otherwise, my characters either use horses/donkeys to carry their stuff or don't use them at all. My GM's have ruled that it's a 20 DC ride check to move a mount towards the enemy in battle, it's just not worth it.
Yeah, most of my players are not mount-combat orientated so they spend the move action to dismount first chance they get. But for the one that is in my campaign, she had her character get a combat-trained mount, so while yeah the base DC to control a mount in battle (move a mount towards the enemy in battle) is 20 but..."Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat." (emphasis mine, not "yelling," just emphasis, hehe).
...just because the Orc has a 5% chance to crit you and kill you instantly.
An orc with no modifiers to attack (+0 to the d20) roll has a 5% chance to threat and the second die roll has a 5% chance to confirm the crit, so the overall chance that a +0 attack mod opponent will crit is 0.25% (a quarter of 1% of a chance).
But the standard Bestiary orc with a falchion (+5 to hit, 18-20 threat range) has a 35% chance to threat and an overall (threat + confirm) 12.25% chance to crit (assuming that the PCs AC is 18 or less [which is common for low-level PCs], and if the orc needs a 20 to hit [AC 25 or higher] then it is still a 0.25% chance to crit). With a minimum of 12 damage on the crit, average of 18 and max of 24. So I'm definitely not saying it isn't "swingy" :) As a player in 3.5 game where the DM was running the Sunless Citadel adventure we watched in horror as a bugbear crit confirmed on our barbarian with a scythe...she was cut in half...there was much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth, hehe.
But back to the OP topic...
As a GM and a player, my problem with mounts isn't that they can be killed or that it takes a good Ride skill to use them in combat...but that they cost a minimum of 75 gp (110 gp for combat-trained) and up to a maximum of 300 gp. (Though if my GM constantly had bandits attacking our horses all the time, ganging up to kill them, then I would be annoyed with that as humanoid bandits and the like make out better if the horses are alive and only the PCs are dead.)
The overall average starting gp for the base classes is 114.5 gp, leaving them with 39.5 gp for other equipment after buying an untrained light horse. 4.5 gp if they buy a trained light horse. And most classes can't afford, at 1st level, a heavy horse, trained or not.
Or, the fighter, if they roll maximum on their 5d6x10 starting gp, then they could buy a war-trained heavy horse and then just run around naked until they gain some in-game coin.
So my fix, at least in the campaign that I run, is to make mounts a separate entity from starting gold; a PC's family gift, going into debt with a local rancher, etc. The better the player makes their character's background history the cheaper the long-term costs for mounts; like one of my players whose character is a young noble included in his character's family's estates "vineyards and ranches." So I let his character commandeer horses from his father's estates, much to the chagrin of his father.
But so far, only one horse died...it got bit by a zombie and the PCs failed to watch it closely (all corporeal undead in my campaign carry a plague that can cause zombification) so they woke up to it attacking their other horses but they managed to put it down before it killed any of the other horses and they were able to use Heal skill to stop the plague from spreading to one of the horses that the zombie horse bit.
I found that when players start out as 5th-level supermen, they take it for granted. When they live in fear that one unlucky blow with a goblin's sword can kill them, and then they level up a few times and THEN become supermen, it becomes something special.
As for the original question, yeah, I quickly got frustrated that horses get killed so easily. But then, I'm now running an adventure that involves the PCs staying at a homestead with lots of horses. Maybe it will be different this time around.