| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been thinking about building a druid PC able to ride his Animal Companion.
I was thinking it pretty easy to do but I ended finding it very costly as you are obliged to use a horse before level 8 if you are of a race different from halfeling or gnome which I don't find appealing. And you can do it by level 8 only if you take savage for your animal companion.
Wrapping my mind around that, another thing bothered me. I was planning to attack with a reach weapon in order to remain no too close to combat and out of reach of opponents able to use attack of opportunity. Where a halfeling could mount by lvl 4 and keep reach, the problem with a large mount is that you loose your reach because you need a reach of 15 foot to keep ability of attacking in melee without being adjacent to opponents.
I end up with being obliged to wait level 8 with a savage companion not as good as nimble to increase it's Armor Class and I lose ability to reach from distance if I ride it. Me and my animal companion count as a large creature in term of space in battle and therefore are more likely to be attacked by more opponents. Last but not least, if I face a warrior, I am in trouble if I want to cast most of my spells.
Result is that mounting cost a lot and is kinda bad strategically choose if you are not a small size PC.
I suggest changing rule of reach when mounting creature by being able to shift your position where you want on your mount for a purpose of determining reach only and increasing animal size also with nimble or let player chose initial animal size between small and medium or add a druid or general feat that allow growing animal companion by one size.
If it is costly, that should be efficient in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. The lack of reach from reach weapons while mounted is a huge disadvantage.
I was looking at a Paladin build with a mount, and the lack of reach meant that it is such a poor choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, if you want to mount as a medium PC, there is quite a lot of drawbacks and before level 8 the only available mount is a horse where small PC can mount anything at a minimum level of 4.
Another thing to consider here: handle an animal is a manipulate action that triggers opportunity action, therefore you might need to dismount in order to move away from or move around a fighter if you don't have the ride general feat.
Last consideration: Armor Class of Animal Companions is low and your mount is really vulnerable making you likely to lose it.
I start to think that mounted combat for medium PC is only viable for ranged fight and mobility, and this is quite sad in my opinion.
Sorry to bother with this very niche problem but it really sucks.
Anybody else playing with reach while mounted ?
I don't get why the small size PC are allowed something interesting with mounts that is impossible for medium PC.
In order to get same treatment with medium PC, you need to have a reach of 15 foot that no weapons allows.
Did I miss something ?
Mounted attacks
You and your mount fight as a unit. Consequently, you share a multiple attack penalty. For example, if you Strike and then Command an Animal to Strike, your mount’s attack takes a –5 multiple attack penalty. You act as if you were in any square of your mount’s space for the purpose of making your attacks. This means that, as a Medium creature, you can attack a creature on one side of your Large mount, then attack a creature on the opposite side of your mount with your next action. If you have reach, the distance of your reach depends partly on the size of your mount. On a Medium or smaller mount, use your normal reach. If you’re on a Large or Huge mount, you can attack any square adjacent to the mount if you have 5- or 10-foot reach, or any square within 10 feet of the mount (including diagonals) if you have 15-foot reach.
As it appears, here, the only real benefit on being mounted is mobility as long as you don't get in range of opportunity attacks.
Mounted defenses
When you’re mounted, attackers can target either you or your mount. Anything that targets multiple creatures (such as a spell with a burst area) affects both of you individually as long as you’re both in the area. Your mount is larger than you and you share its space, so you are screened (see page 314) against attacks targeting you when you’re mounted if the mount would be in the way. You count as being in an attacker’s reach or range if any square of your mount is within the attacker’s reach or range. Because your movement is limited while you’re riding a mount, you take a –2 circumstance penalty to Reflex saves while mounted. Additionally, the only move action you can take is the Mount basic action to dismount.
So you get screened and gets +1 AC. Seems fine but remember that animal companions have AC that sucks and are likely to get critically stroke.
But what really bothers me here is that an ennemy with a reach weapon can attack you 10 feets away from you mount but if you carry the same weapon this ennemy would be out of your reach.
I hope this will be changed because it seems wrong to me.
Yeah, the wonky rule is clearly a gamist one to keep mounted characters with reach from controlling a giant amount of the battlefield.
Assuming you have a reach weapon:
As it should be, you occupy a 10'x10' square with 10' of reach in every direction, making a 30'x30' area of control (36 squares).
As it is, you occupy a 10'x10' area with only 5' of reach (because of mounted combat rules), making a 20'x20' area of control (16 squares).
That's less than half.
The rule seems weird, but it's understandable from the point of view that we don't want a medium fighter on a warhorse standing still and blanketing a 6x6 area with his attacks of opportunity.
It's more awkward when you realize that if the fighter stood on the ground, adjacent to an orc fighter, he could use a reach weapon to hit the orc shaman that is standing behind the orc fighter. He swings over the orc's head somehow, I guess. It just works. But put that same fight on a warhorse and even though he's still adjacent tot he orc warrior, he can NOT hit the shaman directly behind that orc.
Oh, and as Zarkias mentioned, it's even more awkward when you realize that the shaman CAN hit you with exactly the same weapon that you CANNOT use to hit him. He's standing so he gets reach with that weapon but you're mounted so you do not get reach with the SAME weapon.
It's even more awkwarder when you realize that a gnome riding a medium dog and wielding a reach weapon gets to control a 25'x25' area (25 squares). Said gnome can, in fact, this that shaman even while mounted.
Curiouser and curiouser.
It's obviously gamist. Embarrassingly gamist. "Gosh, we can't have one guy covering 36 squares!". So the rule is written and it just doesn't make even a tiny bit of sense from a simulationist point of view. It barely makes sense from a gaminst point of view (a game rule where a person on foot with a spear can reach an enemy that a person on a horse cannot reach with the same spear is a broken rule that even hardcore gamists would probably find lacking).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LoL, I'm laughing now because I think I'll do this to my players.
Get them mounted with reach weapons, facing unmounted enemies with similar reach weapons, using obstacles so that nobody can easily get adjacent, then watch them bang their heads on the table when the unmounted guys can hit them but they can't hit the unmounted guys.
I could probably set this up.
Premise: you must get these prize Lippizaner stallions to the Duke of Whatsisplace to receive a tremendous reward. Don't lose them or let them die. You have a week. He lives only 5 days away. No problem.
Challenge: the horses are well trained and will definitely run back to their stable if you dismount them and don't tie them up immediately.
Encounter: an ambush with bandits using long spears.
Terrain: a precipice on the right and some strewn boulders and a fallen log on the left. The path is just wide enough for the horses single file.
This encounter happens on day 3. The bandits stay behind the boulders and log, stabbing the PCs with reach weapons. If the PCs dismount, the horses run home - there won't be time to go back 3 days to retrieve them again and then still reach the duke in time. So the PCs must fight from horseback. But, alas, they cannot hit the bandits despite the fact that the bandits can hit them! And, of course, the bandits are all fighters with AoO so using bows or spells is a bad idea.
Me, I would feign ignorance, pretending that I didn't know this wonky rule and set up an encounter I thought would be fun. It's not my fault...
Epilogue: the PCs, realizing they can't win this fight, decide to dismount. The horses run away. The PCs realize they have failed this quest and won't be rewarded. But...
...Unbeknownst to them, a pride of griffins catches and eats the fleeing horses and the duke is, justifiably, angry. A bounty is placed on the PCs heads for stealing his prize Lippizaner stallions. Dead or alive.
Enter the bounty hunters and assassins.
The PCs can never show their faces in civilization again.
All because of this weird reach rule.
***
OK, OK, I won't do it. My players would quit. Both from the terrible rule making the encounter unwinnable (or at least unreasonable), or from my railroading them into it. I wouldn't blame them for either reason, really.
But it's funny to think about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the control area is a problem, then, what should we say about a warrior with a spear on which one cast enlarge heightened to 4th level ?
This is making the fighter huge with a reach increase of 10 making a fantastic control upon 3*3 square + 4 square on each side making a 11*11 AoO control area.
Effective mounted combat require good mount, feats investment and actions to handle, mount and command the animal.
I really don't get it ...
***
In my situation, i want to use tactical mobility with my mount but in order to do so without huge disadvantage, i need to pick either gnome or halfling as a PC.
Why is that so ?