Mounted Combat Revision Possible?

[Isaldur]

After watching the Jousting tournament today I noticed that characters in heavy armor had a huge disadvantage when it came to being hit because they were not dodging as often as those who wore light armor. While I'd say this is how it would most likely be on foot I don't quite agree this is the best way for mounted combat to work.

What I'm suggesting, and I honestly don't know if it can be done, is to revise mounted combat so the dodge ability is not as efficient, or even just dodge armor class? Your ability to dodge should be based on the mount's ability, because the best you can do on a mount is duck or lean, no fancy footwork unless the horse or griffon knows how.

This would give heavily armored characters the extra survivability that they historically had on horseback versus more lightly armored men on horseback.

Feel free to tell me I'm crazy.

[Dovan]

Not that I persay disagree... I would bring up this point.

Light calvary has always been quite destructive, especially in groups. I would think to the Arabian / Ottoman style of mounted combat that was a quick hit and go style vs. the english / saxon approach of mounted jousting.

Again... no disagreement to that, but a horse with a lighter load (non-heavy armored rider) would be able to twirl and react quicker, leaving the ability to help its rider dodge blows.

[Glim]

Hmm, I disagree. If I have noticed that something was messed up with heavily armored fighters, I think it is messed up across the board and not just mounted combat. I actually think it's because high level fighters in 3rd ed rely heavily upon magical (+3,4,5 AC) armor, which currently isn't possible on FK. I think there is something very wrong when a fighter with full plate gets hit just as often as a fighter wearing leather armor, no matter if they are mounted or not.

Now, as to mounted combat, I understand where you are coming from, but I think that just because you are restricted by your fancy footwork doesn't mean that it cannot be translated to other things (ducking, moving, blocking etc). I also do not think that negating any dex bonus or dodging while mounted would give them extra survivability but would simply make them weaker overall no matter if mounted or not. It would just make those that wear lighter armor more weaker than those with heavier (if that makes sense). Since the big debate about fighter's being notoriously weaker than other classes, I believe this would add to the problem instead of help it.

Instead, I think that fighters and armour class overall needs to be looked at, and take into the account that we do not have the +5 full plate that is practically expected and required of a lvl 20 fighter in 3rd Ed D&D, compared to other classes with fully functional spells.

Hmm, this is making me want to break out NWN and build a module to test different types of fighters and armour.

[Isaldur]

Ah, I didn't realize that fighters currently considered messed up across the board considering I don't have one I play regularly besides my very abandoned orc. Not to mention as Dovan posted there are different styles of horsemanship and mounted combat that I hadn't even thought of with only a limited way for the MUD to express them all.

I'm going to think on it more because I really do like the idea of expanding fighters. Perhaps feat modifications, or a player's dodge skill while mounted is determined by your mount + animal handle skill + your weight. On the other side of the spectrum the more weight your mount and you have the more extra damage you deal through Spirited Charge.

[Glim]

How about mounted polearms doing 2x the damage so that when you have spirited charge it does 4x? >.>...<.<...

[Harroghty]

How about mounted polearms doing 2x the damage so that when you have spirited charge it does 4x? >.>...<.<...

Okay, but perhaps only for one round if that's possible. The cavalry charge is an awesome thing. Okay, now brace yourself for a historian turned loose on one of his favorite subjects... (You may skip to the bottom for the point.)

I would think to the Arabian / Ottoman style of mounted combat that was a quick hit and go style vs. the english / saxon approach of mounted jousting.

The light cavalry idea you are referring to is much like you might see in Napoleonic times: a charge with a lance and then wheel for a second, shorter charge with a sabre but you are never stopping. You are attacking as you fly by. As you point out, Saracens, Moors, Magyars, Huns, what-have-you were not fighting toe to toe and dodging the blows of their heavy, European opponents; they were fighting from afar as horse archers (much like the Germanic tribes) or making feints and brief attacks. Charge, strike, and then break for another go 'round. Forgotten Kingdoms combat is essentially the good ol' European slugfest. Whether it's toe-to-toe with greatswords, withers-to-withers with sabres, or across a field letting artillery conquer and infantry occupy.

Dodging makes sense in a joust. You are passing by and giving as good as you can while trying to avoid the opponent's blow. You could and were supposed to dodge attacks. Portugal's King Dom Duarte advocated poise and riding skill to avoid blows in his The Royal Book of Horsemanship, Jousting and Knightly Combat in 1438 CE.

What am I saying? Yes, I agree that heavily armored fighters suffer an unrealistic disadvantage, but it is in all combat. If you want a comparison of what light armor and heavy armor, toe-to-toe, looks like you don't need to look far. Lechfeld in 955 CE is a great example (heavy cavalry on light, too). Marathon in 490 BCE is another great one. Lightly armored fighters should really feel the pain of wearing boiled leather when they slash away at full plate armor. No matter how fast you are, your speed should not mitigate your weakness. You are deciding to be a skirmisher, not a front-line grunt and even if you dodge three strikes that one that hits you should really hurt.

[Isaldur]

Mostly what I was trying to get across with the dodging is a bit more difficult while mounted comment is that you essentially only have your upper body to dodge with.

[Harroghty]

Yes, you're right.

You can shift side-to-side; you can stand up in your stirrups; you can bend your legs; you don't need a saddle; yes, ultimately you are less mobile than on foot but there still remain a lot of options.

I think a more realistic reflection of different armor's capabilities and limitations are in order though. I mean, why wear heavy armor at all if all it is doing is slowing you down so that you and the ranger in leathers end up on par in a head-to-head match? Rangers are still warriors (for example) but they take a reduction in their fighting prowess to be skilled in other areas. I don't want to hijack this thread but I believe what Isaldur saw was, as Glim pointed out, less of a flaw in the mounted combat mechanics and more of a fundamental flaw in combat, specifically how "something is messed up with heavily armored fighters".

To be clear, I am not targetting rangers but, in the end, a ranger should only be a good warrior, not as good of a warrior as a fighter could be. I believe that, anyway.

[Isaldur]

It's not so much of a hijack although I'd like this to be focused more on how to make mounted combat even better.

Perhaps a feat or skill you can take/learn that allows you to initiate combat from a room away by charging in a direction at a target, doing however much extra damage would be considered "within balance" for the first hit. Only being able to perform it with a polearm (Much like stun requires a blunt weapon) and unable to use it again until combat is over.

That could effectively simulate your typical cavalry charge, but once again I'm mostly a moron in this area so I don't know if any of this is feasable code and implimentation-wise.

[Raona]

I think that's a nifty idea, Isaldur, nifty indeed. Though, if it means another feat, the opportunity to use it may not come up often enough that people feel it worthwhile. Then again, it might be part of one of these feat trees that we are moving toward - you need the spirited charge and mounted combat feats in order to learn the cavalry charge feat or skill. I think a weapon skill might be better, like bash. In fact, I was wondering about using bash in a joust - perhaps this calvary charge could have a chance, like bash, of stunning your opponent, perhaps also unhorsing them.

[Tobias]

hmm. During the joust other heavily armored people where dodging quite a bit. My last run with dalente ended with me getting hit more in the end. Sometimes it also comes across the weapon skills/2nd 3rd etc.. compared to the others. I am unsure totally though

[Harroghty]

Raona, the trouble with that is it would mandate the whole of the lists have the 'trample' feat (in order, at least, to be competitive). I thought about that idea before hand and am considering it for future events now that you mention it, but the access to that ability is my reservation.

Tobias, yes, I agree and that's why I think that combat mechanics and the use of armor are the root of the issue. As I said earlier, it is entirely conceivable and realistic to be able to dodge from the saddle. As Isaldur points out though, it should be harder than on foot. I just think that is only a symptom of a larger problem -combat mechanics and armor values- and that the solution that would have a larger benefit and fix mounted combat to some degree.