| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kaladorm |
Posted - 17 Apr 2006 : 15:08:19
I'm currently playing a Paladin of Tyr, who has taken to 'jousting' with his lance when in combat, i.e. charging with ride-by attack.
I've had a look in a few sources and can't find any detailed sections on how horses move. Jousting as such seems pretty inefficient, given that the horse is rarely in the right position i.e. if it's facing the wrong way, how does it turn, since unlike single square PCs where it is assumed they're facing the right way, the horse if facing the wrong way can't charge.
Also, when withdrawing from combat, it can be assumed a single square PC just withdraws. But the horse (taking up two squares) has to either turn or walk backwards, and it seems odd to assume a horse can walk backwards at full speed.
Any help on the rulings would be useful, thanks. |
| 18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Kaladorm |
Posted - 24 Apr 2006 : 13:56:37
Oh right it's just me being a muppet then :) Forgot about the size modifier, heehee.
That means I must have imagined the article about strengths and horses, oh well  |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 24 Apr 2006 : 12:56:28
Animal BAB is 3/4 HD, so a for HD warhorse BAB = +3
" Quadrupeds can carry heavier loads than characters can. Instead of the multipliers given above, multiply the value corresponding to the creature’s Strength score from Table: Carrying Capacity by the appropriate modifier, as follows: Fine ×¼, Diminutive ×½, Tiny ×¾, Small ×1, Medium ×1½, Large ×3"
" Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier"
War Hotse +3 +4 -1 = +6 (remember Horse is large)
|
| Kaladorm |
Posted - 24 Apr 2006 : 12:08:39
I've noticed that the warhorses in the SRD seem to have -1 to their attacks (at least by my calculations)
I vaguely remember an explanation by 'someone' regarding varying strength scores and attacks and carrying capacity etc, with horses used as an example, but I can't remember enough to know where to look for it :)
Can anyone confirm this is correct for me please? |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 18 Apr 2006 : 11:27:26
In regard to commands... (from Wikipedia)
War Horses are horses specially trained for use in battle or individual combat (see also: Jousting).
A war horse's training would generally address its responsiveness to being controlled without reins, tolerance for the noises of battle, and its adaptability to weapons and armor the rider would be using. In addition, some war horses were trained to kick on command, thus becoming weapons in the extended arsenal of the warriors they carried. A common misconception is that a war horse is simply a horse in armor. In fact, much training was required to overcome the horse's natural aversion to the smell of blood, and its natural disinclination to trample a person.
Prior to the development of plate armour, small, agile horses were trained for use in battle by various cultures for both cavalry and horse archers. In some of these cultures, war horses were routinely gelded, as an ancient trick was to release a herd of mares in heat onto the battlefield to cause distraction and disobedience in non-gelded war horses.
During the Middle Ages, large horses with the strength and stamina to carry both a knight and his heavy armor into battle were highly prized. In addition to size, these horses were selected for speed and trainability. The expense of keeping, training and outfitting these specialized horses prevented the majority of the population from owning them.
Compared to the medieval knights' Great Horse, most modern breeds are small and fast. However, modern breeds of draft horse such as Belgian, Percheron and Shire horse descended from the huge horses that carried armored knights and were often armored themselves.
Metaphorically, a war horse is a standard of the musical repertory, usually a 19th-century symphonic work, dependable but somewhat threadbare from familiarity, like "Beethoven's Fifth Symphony." It can also be said affectionately of a person; Robert E. Lee is said to have referred to James Longstreet as his "Old War Horse". When used in this sense the term often implies that the recipient is dependable, if a bit lacking in imagination.
I agree that it will respond to the commands, horses trained nowadays also do. It'll still be a matter of bonding tho. If you take a regularly trained horse today, it will not be docile to the new rider, it is unaccustomed to the different circumstances; weight, height, etc. The horse will know the rider is not its trainer, so it will test the limits, set new boundaries so to speak.
The war-horse will be trained to follow commands and if the rider is dismounted probably to retreat from the battlefield. I doubt it will attack independently, since that requires an amount of individual thinking that I doubt a horse is capable of. |
| Kaladorm |
Posted - 18 Apr 2006 : 10:55:35
Not only are the warhorses bred for strength and aggression, the difference between them and a normal horse is that the horse doesn't 'need' a seperate command telling it to attack, i.e. they have been trained to attack.
So that covers the fear aspect, as for inexperience in battle, I can only assume it's the same as any adventurer. Whats to stop a fresh recruit of the Abbey of the Sword dedicated to Tempus crapping himself when he comes up against his first 'real' combat. Not a lot I expect, but he has been trained to expect it.
Perhaps during training the horses are sent into fields where chicken blood has been spread around, and they complete their trainign whilst people bang pots and pans and shout and yell (in much the same way a police dog or guide dog has rigorous training to learn to ignore the unimportant things in the conditions they'll be in).
With regards to the horse trusting the rider, I agree, it will probably take some time for the rider and the horse to develop a bond. But I also think that a horse that has been properly trained (especially to the high standard expected of war horses) will be respond to the commands of a new rider |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 18 Apr 2006 : 09:39:42
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
(A trained heavy warhorse in the PHB would be trained to follow basic commands but NOT a madcap charge such as this, unless it has bonded with the rider and has established trust. Even a paladin's steed will prolly need some time to actually do such a thing.
That's how far my experience with horses goes... but I bet it is reliable.)
Alas a Horse, in fact many have been trained to do this. To charge , trable and let their riders lance mounted and footed people. Oh some horses would fail training, perhaps the scent of blood from charging condemned felons (or perhaps non taxing peasants) that war horses were more able to stand the smell of blood of war then a modern day horse would expect and obay comands under the strange conditions. In mounted warfare the horses often dealt with blood and conditions that today's real world no longer requires. The warhorse indeed was a weapon o the knight and at times caused more damage then the person riding it. If anything, in my view D&D has horse with lower Int then they merit.
The problem with that is:
a horse will be trained by one person to follow commands. It learns these things, yes, so a warhorse will know what to do when the rider employs slight pressure with his left leg, for example.
The horse will not, IMO, be taught to actually deal with the troubles of combat, aside from some standard things. At least I cannot imagine an in-field training session, it would paint a very funny picture to see the horse trainer asking a bunch of bloodied combatants to please hold that screaming and maiming pose so that he can ride the horse through them.
So, you will have commands and less fear trained into the horse, BUT it will still be up to the rider to earn trust and teach the more complex things... |
| Reefy |
Posted - 18 Apr 2006 : 02:51:22
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Kaladorm
Thanks guys.
Tristan Asharr of Suzail just got a lot more dangerous :)
*LOL*
He's not wrong... |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 18 Apr 2006 : 02:35:47
(A trained heavy warhorse in the PHB would be trained to follow basic commands but NOT a madcap charge such as this, unless it has bonded with the rider and has established trust. Even a paladin's steed will prolly need some time to actually do such a thing.
That's how far my experience with horses goes... but I bet it is reliable.)
Alas a Horse, in fact many have been trained to do this. To charge , trable and let their riders lance mounted and footed people. Oh some horses would fail training, perhaps the scent of blood from charging condemned felons (or perhaps non taxing peasants) that war horses were more able to stand the smell of blood of war then a modern day horse would expect and obay comands under the strange conditions. In mounted warfare the horses often dealt with blood and conditions that today's real world no longer requires. The warhorse indeed was a weapon o the knight and at times caused more damage then the person riding it. If anything, in my view D&D has horse with lower Int then they merit. |
| Kaladorm |
Posted - 18 Apr 2006 : 01:49:59
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Jousting is the wrong term for the sort of combat Kaladorm is looking for. Looks to me like the standard heavy cavalry attack: lance-point aimed at opponent and charge. I can't recall the rules mentioning any difficulties that would occur if the lance got stuck (whick is more than likely...). If I remember correctly, and at this time of day (which is night) I hardly remember my own middle name...no wait I don't have a middle name, the cavalry charged once, into the enemy's lines, wasted whatever they could with the power of both lance and horse and then got out their swords or other melee weapons.
Maybe there is a rule to handle this.. I dunno. My suggestion would be: after a hit make a riding check DC: (Number of squares moved * speed mod (which is at least 2) + opponents AC). Success indicates that you pulled the lance out while passing the opponent, failure means you gotta use a melee weapon.
Some might say that this is a bit harsh, but I think 'tis only realistic. I could ask my sister, even though she does not joust, she is a professional rider, so going at full gallop with a LONG and pointy object and getting the pointy object into a body is easy... getting the pointy object out ain't.
Your paladin would be well advised to get some barding for the horse, plus have it be trained so thoroughly that the horse will not shy away from a 'wall' of enemies. They will not charge through. They first would try to stop, or jump over the obstacle. UNLESS the obstacle is blocking the horses line of sight so that the horse cannot estimate whether it is safe to jump or not, in which case you (as the rider) still got your stirr-ups.
A trained heavy warhorse in the PHB would be trained to follow basic commands but NOT a madcap charge such as this, unless it has bonded with the rider and has established trust. Even a paladin's steed will prolly need some time to actually do such a thing.
That's how far my experience with horses goes... but I bet it is reliable.
Oh and just if you're interested, his horse is called Amends and is a Cormyrian Destrier, born and bred outside Suzail by his family, been with him forI think 8 years. The mount has no barding, but instead Tristan has the Saddleback feat (allowing you to take 10 on ride checks) which combined with the mounted combat feat means the mount has more ac through his ride skill than it could get through any medium armour (and more manouverability too) |
| Kaladorm |
Posted - 18 Apr 2006 : 01:45:47
quote:
Originally posted by Mordakay of Thay
Btw why allot of paladin players choose the name Tristan.My friend plays a paladin,his name is Tristan.I was playing WOW,and there were like 5 Tristan paladins in the game.LoL can i asume that they all have heard of Tristan and Isolde?:D
Who?
Lol, Tristan was one that popped up with a random name generator and I thought 'yeah Tristan, that works'. But maybe my views coloured because like you say there are probably a few famous Tristans out there.
With regards to jousting, thanks for the formal information ;) I wasn't exactly referring to the type used in tournaments but it was just a quick way to describe the style of fighting i.e. with ride by attack and horseshoes of speed, simply charging into and past an opponent then turning and repeating. Probably the type of tactics the light cavalry are more likely to use but it works well in one on one combat :)
|
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 17 Apr 2006 : 23:41:17
Jousting is the wrong term for the sort of combat Kaladorm is looking for. Looks to me like the standard heavy cavalry attack: lance-point aimed at opponent and charge. I can't recall the rules mentioning any difficulties that would occur if the lance got stuck (whick is more than likely...). If I remember correctly, and at this time of day (which is night) I hardly remember my own middle name...no wait I don't have a middle name, the cavalry charged once, into the enemy's lines, wasted whatever they could with the power of both lance and horse and then got out their swords or other melee weapons.
Maybe there is a rule to handle this.. I dunno. My suggestion would be: after a hit make a riding check DC: (Number of squares moved * speed mod (which is at least 2) + opponents AC). Success indicates that you pulled the lance out while passing the opponent, failure means you gotta use a melee weapon.
Some might say that this is a bit harsh, but I think 'tis only realistic. I could ask my sister, even though she does not joust, she is a professional rider, so going at full gallop with a LONG and pointy object and getting the pointy object into a body is easy... getting the pointy object out ain't.
Your paladin would be well advised to get some barding for the horse, plus have it be trained so thoroughly that the horse will not shy away from a 'wall' of enemies. They will not charge through. They first would try to stop, or jump over the obstacle. UNLESS the obstacle is blocking the horses line of sight so that the horse cannot estimate whether it is safe to jump or not, in which case you (as the rider) still got your stirr-ups.
A trained heavy warhorse in the PHB would be trained to follow basic commands but NOT a madcap charge such as this, unless it has bonded with the rider and has established trust. Even a paladin's steed will prolly need some time to actually do such a thing.
That's how far my experience with horses goes... but I bet it is reliable. |
| Mordakay of Thay |
Posted - 17 Apr 2006 : 23:36:18
Btw why allot of paladin players choose the name Tristan.My friend plays a paladin,his name is Tristan.I was playing WOW,and there were like 5 Tristan paladins in the game.LoL can i asume that they all have heard of Tristan and Isolde?:D
|
| Kentinal |
Posted - 17 Apr 2006 : 23:34:40
Joust rules, did have a point system in pratice, however in conbat it was kill, unhorse, kill horse.
In practice tonoments, points for dehorsing, taking off helmet, etc. indeed were recorded in history. Also one was better respected for killing the Knight then killing the Horse the Knight was riding. Killing the Hourse would have in D&D terms be considered an Evil act. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 17 Apr 2006 : 23:21:12
I once did a research paper on jousting... 'Twas a while ago, though, so I'm hardly an expert on the topic.
But I do recall that jousting in a tournament was a ritualized affair. It wasn't a "beat the other guy at all costs" type of thing, they actually had rules and such to follow. Another nifty fact was that the crowd loved it when the lances shattered on impact. Eventually they started making lances specifically so that they would shatter. They'd make a few passes with those for the crowd, and then break out the real ones and get to the serious business of trying to unhorse each other.
I seem to recall that they had to specifically aim for the other guy's shield, and that hitting the horse was major bad mojo. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 17 Apr 2006 : 22:11:16
quote:
Originally posted by Kaladorm
Thanks guys.
Tristan Asharr of Suzail just got a lot more dangerous :)
*LOL* |
| Kaladorm |
Posted - 17 Apr 2006 : 21:56:10
Thanks guys.
Tristan Asharr of Suzail just got a lot more dangerous :) |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 17 Apr 2006 : 15:54:05
A joust only occurs when facing a foe.
Using charge rule and ride by, you can not turn horse until next round.
As for turning, that is a free action I believe and size does not matter. It may not be RL, but the core rules does not use facing, you nor the Horse can get backstabed (it can be flanked, but not backstabbed).
" The standard d20 combat rules intentionally ignore the direction a creature faces. The rules assume that creatures are constantly moving and shifting within their spaces, looking in all directions during a fight. "
There is a varient rule you can consider provided here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/combatFacing.htm |
| Arivia |
Posted - 17 Apr 2006 : 15:27:45
Questions like this are why the current combat size rules exist. First off, remember that unless you're using a house rule like that in Unearthed Arcana, D&D doesn't care about facing at all. Secondly, remember that each combat square is an abstractualized five-foot space; a character possibly isn't occupying all of one square at once, but has room to maneuver within that square --- this is why you don't actually move when making a Reflex save, for example.
Now, back in 3.0, there were two different spaces taken up by creatures of Large and above size --- tall, and long. Tall creatures took up square spaces, while long creatures took up rectangular spaces(consisting of square combat squares). This lead to the movement confusion problems you're trying to solve; long creatures seemingly couldn't turn around and there was a lot of confusion.
In 3.5, however, all creatures have square spaces. In the case of tall creatures, they just occupy the space. In the case of long creatures, the space not only contains them, but gives them area to turn around. This, combined with the fact that the game doesn't care about facing, means that the game abstractualizes over horse facing, assuming that it's possible.
Charging, a horse turns in the right direction in its square then charges; withdrawing, a horse turns to withdraw then withdraws. |
|
|
