Attacking from horseback should...

slimykuotoan · Post by **slimykuotoan** » Wed May 13, 2009 11:48 pm

...give one an advantage.

Even in today's world it is: riot police, etc.
_________________
Society Member
http://www.cncsociety.org/

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Wed May 13, 2009 11:54 pm

It does... if you are a knight, especially. Otherwise, "situational modifiers" covered in the PHB.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

slimykuotoan · Post by **slimykuotoan** » Wed May 13, 2009 11:59 pm

Yeah, the knight looks good, but otherwise it's a minus 1.

So all things being equal, bringing a horse into combat puts one at a disadvantage, etc.
_________________
Society Member
http://www.cncsociety.org/

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu May 14, 2009 12:05 am

Umm, no. "Defender on lower elevation +1" does not mean "the defender gets a +1 AC." It means the attacker gets a +1 bonus to hit them. Look at the other modifiers: "Defender invisible or attacker blind -10." The situational combat modifiers apply to attack rolls... therefore, being on horseback gives an advantage against many foes, namely those medium or smaller.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

CKDad · Post by **CKDad** » Thu May 14, 2009 12:10 am

slimykuotoan wrote:
...give one an advantage.

Even in today's world it is: riot police, etc.

When one has the proper training for it, both horse and rider. If not, I suspect one is actually at a terrible disadvantage.

But if you have a culture that fights regularly from horseback (say a horse-based barbarian), easy enough to adapt the knight rules to meet one's needs.
_________________
"I don't wanna be remembered as the guy who died because he underestimated the threat posed by a monkey."

slimykuotoan · Post by **slimykuotoan** » Thu May 14, 2009 12:18 am

In the situational modifiers section, attacks from horseback penalize characters by a modifer of 2 I believe.
_________________
Society Member
http://www.cncsociety.org/

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu May 14, 2009 12:26 am

Not in the PHB I just looked at... maybe that has changed. If so, then whatever it is changed to is wrong.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

slimykuotoan · Post by **slimykuotoan** » Thu May 14, 2009 12:27 am

Yeah, I've got page 118 of the 2nd printing.
_________________
Society Member
http://www.cncsociety.org/

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Thu May 14, 2009 12:52 am

slimykuotoan wrote:
Yeah, I've got page 118 of the 2nd printing.

Same in the 3rd printing.

"Melee attack from a mount or unstable platform, -2"

"Ranged attack from a mount or unstable platform, -4"

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu May 14, 2009 1:43 am

Huh. Had not seen that "Melee attack from a mount or unstable platform, -2" before. I'd have that affect only untrained mounts.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Grey · Post by **Grey** » Thu May 14, 2009 9:24 am

Although not specifically listed in the "situational modifiers" I give a recirpocal penalty when attacking a mounted foe; I also agree with serleran, and only apply "Melee attack from a mount or unstable platform, -2" to untrained mounts (riding horses, or a war horse that the character is not familiar with). As a rider, although not 'stationary' if your horse is trained (such as Police horses) it is not 'unstable', only mobile (and hence the -2 wouldn't apply)

The knight gets a 'riding horse' as well as the ability to fight from horseback 'without penalty' - I interprate this to mean 'without any normally applicable penalty', i.e. they can use ANY horse in combat situations.

CKDad said:

Quote:
When one has the proper training for it, both horse and rider. If not, I suspect one is actually at a terrible disadvantage.

But if you have a culture that fights regularly from horseback (say a horse-based barbarian), easy enough to adapt the knight rules to meet one's needs.

....and I agree wholeheartedly (again from riding experience); although if a character's culture was heavily linked to fighting from horseback, then I would classify their riding horses as being 'combat trained' (and hence no -2 penalty).

As a final point, mounted characters can also try to intimidate characters on foot (this closely reflects moder Police use) - to me this is a CHA chack by the rider, modified with bonns for being mounted.

D

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Thu May 14, 2009 4:10 pm

Personally, I don't mind the -2 to attack from horseback. I think it would have to take some skill to be able to attack in that fashion, hence the knight's ability to do so. I wouldn't be opposed to allowing a (non-knight) character to reduce that penalty to -1 or even 0 if they took extensive training to do so (much like chain mail wearing wizards...just messing with you, Rigon! ).
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Eisenmann · Post by **Eisenmann** » Thu May 14, 2009 6:26 pm

To throw in my two cents...

It does take some training to strike targets that are on the ground. I grew up riding but don't consider myself awesome but I could canter and guide a kontos lance into a pumpkin and I could shoot a bow from horseback hitting a similar sized target at very close range.

With a bit of training time under one's belt the noted advantage of being on horseback becomes evident.

It'd be nice if the rules were a bit more concrete or a bit more vague in the general sense. As written it feels a bit wobbly.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Thu May 14, 2009 11:54 pm

I will kindly disagree with you, good sir. May I ask how you see the rules as "wobbly?"

I'm not saiying you don't have sound reasoning, it's just that I think I'm missing it. I think that the -2/-4 for hitting something from horseback is a good represenative of someone who has no formal training in such activity. The knight doesn't have the penalty, since he has the aforementioned training. No offense, Eisenmann, but I think a moving, evading, target would/should come with a penalty to hit.

I also think that it made good sense to keep the knight's ability to "cap" at no penalty and give anyone else a penalty, rather than to start giving the knigh bonuses to hit from horseback. It should never be easier to hit from horseback than to hit from the ground, IMHO.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Sir Osis of Liver · Post by **Sir Osis of Liver** » Fri May 15, 2009 12:17 am

Eisenmann wrote:
To throw in my two cents...

It'd be nice if the rules were a bit more concrete or a bit more vague in the general sense. As written it feels a bit wobbly.

I got tired of "concrete" rules with d20. That's something I can house rule on as I need to.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Fri May 15, 2009 1:17 am

Sir Osis of Liver wrote:
I got tired of "concrete" rules with d20. That's something I can house rule on as I need to.

I can agree with this, too. I hate spending more time looking up rules than I do playing.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Sir Osis of Liver · Post by **Sir Osis of Liver** » Fri May 15, 2009 1:24 am

Lord Dynel wrote:
I got tired of "concrete" rules with d20. That's something I can house rule on as I need to.

I can agree with this, too. I hate spending more time looking up rules than I do playing.[/quote]

Man, we're on the same wavelength tonight. Scary...

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Fri May 15, 2009 1:25 am

You say that like it's a bad thing...

I've never noticed - are we usually not?
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Sir Osis of Liver · Post by **Sir Osis of Liver** » Fri May 15, 2009 1:35 am

Lord Dynel wrote:
You say that like it's a bad thing...

I've never noticed - are we usually not?

It isn't so much a bad thing for me. Most people cringe when they wind up agreeing with me. I don't think we're normally that far off.

Eisenmann · Post by **Eisenmann** » Fri May 15, 2009 1:38 am

I didn't say that I wanted C&C turned into D20. Sheesh. Now we've got that fallacy out of the way... It'd be cool if the subject was tightened up a bit more or made more vague for interpretation. Something's up hence the thread.

Also, with a bit of training it is easier to hit from horseback than on foot. To commit to hitting someone mounted prevents a whole lot of bobbing, weaving, evading. It's pretty much you're there committed to striking the mounted person or you're jumping out of the way. It really comes down to a guy on foot standing in the vicinity of a thousand pound animal with a guy on its back trying to kill him.

PS

Just because a guy has some criticism it doesn't mean he's trashing the system. Nor does it mean that the game sucks. He may even love it.

Sir Osis of Liver · Post by **Sir Osis of Liver** » Fri May 15, 2009 1:45 am

Eisenmann wrote:
I didn't say that I wanted C&C turned into D20. Sheesh. Now we've got that fallacy out of the way... It'd be cool if the subject was tightened up a bit more or made more vague for interpretation. Something's up hence the thread.

Also, with a bit of training it is easier to hit from horseback than on foot. To commit to hitting someone mounted prevents a whole lot of bobbing, weaving, evading. It's pretty much you're there committed to striking the mounted person or you're jumping out of the way. It really comes down to a guy on foot standing in the vicinity of a thousand pound animal with a guy on its back trying to kill him.

PS

Just because a guy has some criticism it doesn't mean he's trashing the system. Nor does it mean that the game sucks. He may even love it.

Sorry...I didn't mean to imply that you were trashing the game. I just had enough of rules "tightening" that became endemic with the aforementioned game system. Instead of leaving those kinds of calls in the hands of the PC/GM, it had to be codified. It's one of those things that isn't necessarily crucial. What I love about the C&C system is that any character can try a mounted attack. I find the rules on the subject to be sufficient for what I do, as the only character I have seen attempt a mounted attack is the knight in my party.

I think that if you can explain something in a character's background well enough, e.g. a society that has a substantial part of its army mounted in some way, such that there's a good possibility that a fighter could have significant mounted combat abilities, it's easy to houserule. Of course, those fighters still wouldn't be as good in mounted combat as a knight, but they might be able to avoid some of the penalties.

I'm not trying to get into yet another contentious "my system is better than your system" thread. I'm just saying that I got real tired of having to constantly check for new errata, wait for the new splatbook etc. so that rules could be tightened up.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Eisenmann · Post by **Eisenmann** » Fri May 15, 2009 1:47 am

No prob. Sir Osis. Interestingly enough, I've never played that other game.

I don't think we need a supplement to "fix" anything. Heck, I'm aiming for PHB 15th printing.

slimykuotoan · Post by **slimykuotoan** » Fri May 15, 2009 2:23 am

Nevertheless, I do feel that a person on a warhorse should have some advantage against a person on foot.

Or at least, a person standing on tippy-toes to stab at a rider above him or her with the tip of a sword should have some sort of penalty.
_________________
Society Member
http://www.cncsociety.org/

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Fri May 15, 2009 10:27 am

Sorry, Eisenmann. I never intended to sound like you were comparing CnC to d20, either. My apologies.

As far as bonuses to hitting while mounted, I guess I'll agree to disagree. I'll admit that I never have done it, or over attempted it, and I've only been on horseback a handful of times. It's just the impresssion I get - yeah, being above the defender is an advantage, but it seems the defender can do a lot of things that can make it difficult as well (such as moving crouching low to avoid your sword-swing, making you lean out/over far, etc.)
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

slimykuotoan · Post by **slimykuotoan** » Fri May 15, 2009 2:12 pm

Hmm, good point. However, I still think there's an advantage to being mounted during combat that C&C may be missing -aside from mobility.

Thinking in terms of riot police, etc.
_________________
Society Member
http://www.cncsociety.org/

cheeplives · Post by **cheeplives** » Fri May 15, 2009 3:23 pm

slimykuotoan wrote:
Hmm, good point. However, I still think there's an advantage to being mounted during combat that C&C may be missing -aside from mobility.

Thinking in terms of riot police, etc.

You could grant a +2 AC to the mounted character... after all, it's hard to reach the person effectively from the ground. That AC bonus would be ignored if the foot soldiers are armed with "reach" style weapons.
_________________
discreteinfinity.com -- my little corner of the internet.

Author of StarSIEGE: Event Horizon -- Available now from Troll Lord Games!

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri May 15, 2009 4:09 pm

slimykuotoan wrote:
Or at least, a person standing on tippy-toes to stab at a rider above him or her with the tip of a sword should have some sort of penalty.

See, this is where training comes in. One ought not to try and stab the person on the horse. Instead, one aims at the girth strap holding the saddle onto the horse and slices that off. Then, as the bewildered rider, still perched on the saddle, on the ground, watches their horse ride off without them, the attacker can get a nice shot in.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri May 15, 2009 4:14 pm

Yeah, it has always bugged me in games where people try to attack the rider. Screw that. Kill the horse.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Eisenmann · Post by **Eisenmann** » Fri May 15, 2009 4:53 pm

LD, no prob.

Regarding attacking the horse:

That's what cataphract barding is for.
Mounted combat like all combat has psychological aspects that loom large but are difficult to relate to for a lot of people since most of us do not have a lot of experience with horses while we can all relate to walking around on our own two feet.

Put simply, typically people are/were more afraid of the animal than of the guy on top of it. The horse's sphere of influence is quite large.

My grandfather imparted some wisdom to me on the subject as he was in the cavalry, US Army when they still used horses.

A footman's greatest defense against cavalry is his fellow footmen.

A charging horse can certainly cause a moment of indecision even when there's not a screaming dude on top that wants to kill you. There's a reason why a cantankerous horse that's trying to bully someone will charge.

Cheeplives, I like the +2 AC for a rider. Very simple.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri May 15, 2009 5:01 pm

And, this from a chap who is a trained cavalryman, let me tell you, its no picnic trying to control a horse, wield a weapon or three, and try and fend off a bunch of swarming attackers at the same time.

I can speak with much experience to this subject due to being a reenactor who spent many years of his life doing both Mexican war and Civil war skirmishing.

So yes, a trained cavalryman can do much on horseback. But, the question is, is any other class besides the knight specifically trained to fight on horseback effectively?

I could see a character of any other class being trained over the course of time, with lessening of the penalties, to do so. But initially?

Especially without a trained warhorse. Most times, when you poke something at a horse, its going to rear up and dump the rider, or kick the crap out of anyone within range. The rider, at this point, is too busy trying to hold onto both the horse and his own breakfast to try and poke back.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Attacking from horseback should...

Attacking from horseback should...

Re: Attacking from horseback should...