Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

May I make a suggestion that disarming a mounted foe be made more difficult if he has the mounted combat feat and the foe be dismounted?

personally I think the advantage being mounted offers is not realised properly in the game.

If you consider that the unmounted opponant is likely to be using a high guard most of the time, he is not going to get a chance to disarm he will be on the defensive.

I agree, there are a lot of mounted combat things that are not recognized on FK, and there are so many possibilities it is impossible to put them all in the game. They are already looking into the spirited charge feat that is bugged. But as for the mounted verse unmounted unless you are on killmode spar, you would only really get one charge and that would be the initial attack. After that it is all close combat. Unless you have a lance or a spear. But if you are wielding an axe, or a bastard sword, or a mace, anything that is short, you would be plenty close enough to disarm. Sure, it would be difficult to disarm, but if you are getting close enough to attack with your sword, and get 4 attacks in one round, you are there plenty long enough to get disarmed. Now, if it was a true charge like you are saying you would get one, MAYBE two attacks per round, but that is not how it is coded. And if your horse get a leg hacked at it is going to rear up and then go down, if a muscle gets severed it is going down and then the rider either falls to a prone position, or gets stuck on a kneeling horse. There are so many possibilities with this scenario it is impossible to equalize or make it somewhat realistic.

I don't agree. Even in D&D, the only difference is between strength mods and bonuses if the weapon is wielded with two hands or penalties if the weapon is light.

How about the Ride-By Attack feat?

Looking at it's description it doesn't look like we could code that in but we could design it to replicate some of the affects the description suggests it would cause?

Briek wrote:personally I think the advantage being mounted offers is not realised properly in the game

On this point I totally concur, but I think an overall fix is needed. Spirited Charge repair is jammed up by game balance considerations, and a related bug with mounted combat.

On the question of disarming - I could see treating a "mounted polearm" as if it were two-handed, even when held one handed, but perhaps only for certain weapon types. Disarming a mounted opponent wielding a lance or spear should be hard - there's very little to grab onto without getting stuck. Not as much with a halberd, perhaps, but if it is not already the case treating mounted polearms as two-handed might be a reasonable step. Still, I'd wait on anything related to this until the bigger picture is addressed.

Raona wrote: I could see treating a "mounted polearm" as if it were two-handed, even when held one handed

Yes, the vamplate of the lance is locked in place on a lance-hook, it's not going anywhere.

Briek wrote:How about the Ride-By Attack feat?

I'm all for putting new feats in, but Ride-By Attack isn't really a good candidate as we don't have the ability to use tactical feats. This is the same reason we can bash, but not bullrush past an opponent.

Raona wrote:

Briek wrote:personally I think the advantage being mounted offers is not realised properly in the game

On this point I totally concur[...]

How is it not fully realized aside from greater distance mobility? Just riding a horse confers no special benefits in combat aside from being able to get a single extra attack as your horse can kick or stomp. Feats are additional abilities and shouldn't be devalued by getting benefits without using a feat point to get them.

Selveem wrote:Just riding a horse confers no special benefits in combat aside from being able to get a single extra attack as your horse can kick or stomp.

I'm not sure why I'm arguing this point, since it seems obvious to me...but I'll take your statement at face value.

If a steed is actually moving you at a good clip, your attacks will obviously do far more damage (and penetrate armour), though you should only get one. Even if you are mounted but essentially stationary, your height advantage is appreciable, though it should be easier for someone not trying to hit you to dodge or get out of your immediate reach (not so much your steed's). With an appropriate weapon (not a dagger, I'll grant), you are a far greater threat mounted.

There are good game mechanics reasons for keeping mounted combat similar to unmounted combat...but there is a reason that a mounted combatant was more dangerous than a similarly armed footman; and one with the ability to ride would try to find a steed rather than fight on foot if given the option, especially if their armour was heavy.

I'm not a military man, but I find it hard to believe that 1 footman is worth 1 mounted cavalry in most circumstances. (Maybe not in quicksand or a swamp.)

Raona wrote:

Selveem wrote:Just riding a horse confers no special benefits in combat aside from being able to get a single extra attack as your horse can kick or stomp.

I'm not sure why I'm arguing this point, since it seems obvious to me...but I'll take your statement at face value.

If a steed is actually moving you at a good clip, your attacks will obviously do far more damage (and penetrate armour), though you should only get one. Even if you are mounted but essentially stationary, your height advantage is appreciable, though it should be easier for someone not trying to hit you to dodge or get out of your immediate reach (not so much your steed's). With an appropriate weapon (not a dagger, I'll grant), you are a far greater threat mounted.

There are good game mechanics reasons for keeping mounted combat similar to unmounted combat...but there is a reason that a mounted combatant was more dangerous than a similarly armed footman; and one with the ability to ride would try to find a steed rather than fight on foot if given the option, especially if their armour was heavy.

I'm not a military man, but I find it hard to believe that 1 footman is worth 1 mounted cavalry in most circumstances. (Maybe not in quicksand or a swamp.)

Ah, I see the issue: I'm talking D&D mechanics; you're talking about real life.

The difference between what we're talking about is that in D&D, a Cavalier prestige DOES exist as you expect real life to be.

They're damned vicious, too (staggering amount of damage they can do with a charged strike!). But, just because you can ride and point a lance doesn't make you a specialist. There are feats for improving your abilities on a horse, but even still they aren't like the Cavalier prestige. I think it's important that this be pointed out as mechanics involved to do the type of things you talk about are for a specialist class, not for everyone.

edited to add: Also, remember that hitroll is more than just your ability to penetrate armor; it's your ability to hit your opponent as well. It's likely no bonus was conferred in D&D (aside from the +1 for being on higher ground, if the opponent is not size "large" or larger) because while it's easier to strike through your opponents' AC, it's harder to strike them overall.

It's not letting me paste the mechanics from D20SRD.org, but here they are: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm

Combat while Mounted is what you're looking for.

Selveem

The Battle of Hastings 1066, Harold Godwinson vs William the Bastard

There is only one reason Harold even stood half a chance in this battle and that's
because he picked his ground very well (a steep hill I can tell you) the Anglo-Saxons
were mostly axe wielders in ny other conditions they would have not stood a chance
against Williams heavy calvalry, being on the wrong end of a good cavalry charge is like
being hit by a car.

One mounted soldier against a group of footsoldiers has only one major worry, being surrounded
and pulled down but otherwise...he's in pretty good shape.

On disarming, being mounted doesn't change a thing, it is the type of weapon that changes anything.
Except that disarming is normally opposed attack roll and thus you should get a +1 if you are mounted and the other is not because you are on higher ground...
But until we take into account height difference and tactical combat I don't see it happening.

On mounted combat in general, and more on charges, I'm going to make another post as to not mix things

Briek wrote:Selveem

The Battle of Hastings 1066, Harold Godwinson vs William the Bastard

There is only one reason Harold even stood half a chance in this battle and that's
because he picked his ground very well (a steep hill I can tell you) the Anglo-Saxons
were mostly axe wielders in ny other conditions they would have not stood a chance
against Williams heavy calvalry, being on the wrong end of a good cavalry charge is like
being hit by a car.

One mounted soldier against a group of footsoldiers has only one major worry, being surrounded
and pulled down but otherwise...he's in pretty good shape.

He would have won too, if he was not allergic to getting arrows shot at him through the eye. I'm for horse power in combat while mounted.

I'd like to point out that reality has little to do with fantasy mechanics.

Going off of real life, I'm sure the only thing cavalry ever feared was being surrounded. No cavalier ever had to worry about their horses falling on them, losing control of their horse, or their a wall of pointed trees. BTW, what happens when the lance is grounded? Of course, in real life a wizard's Hallucinatory Terrain doesn't exist for them either, so the point is a bit moot.

Going off of D&D rules, you get a measly +1 circumstantial bonus.

Harold Godwinson also ended up with his "thigh" on the end of a stick.

The trouble with injecting reality is that very little of the game mechanics make sense in the real world and so once you pick one thing to edit you open the door to a myriad of others (as Selveem points out). Maybe it should be harder to disarm a mounted PC, but is that change really worth the time and effort to not only effect it but also to balance it?

Well, if we start adjusting rules to what real life would be like instead of D&D mechanics we could really get going on all kinds of issues here. Almost everything in the game would be up for the change argument.

Yes, exactly.