Riding in the back of mounts

[RobNJ]

[color=burlywood]I was reading the combat chapter closely the other day and noticed that on
Large mounts, you are considered to be in the back square of your mount.
For a visual representation, X will represent horse, O, man.

Horse:  XX --> (facing)
Man:    O  --> (facing)
Man on
 Horse: OX --> (facing)

So my question is, without a reach weapon, if you're attacking from the
back of a horse aren't you basically guaranteed to subject your mount to
one or more attacks of opportunity?

Example, I am charging at an enemy, *, with my horse, using a mace:

Beginning of charge:

XO            *

End of safe portion of charge:

            XO*

At this point I have to pivot to my right or left to strike the enemy, but
that involves my mount moving out of a threatened square.  In order to
strike, I have to be in one of the following configurations (not counting
mirror images):

             X
             O*

or

              X
             O*

The only way this could work safely is if my mount could move sideways the
entire length.  So in other words, start of charge:

X
O             *

End of charge:

             X
             O*

But this breaks logic.  This is probably in part due to the fact that the
notion of the rider being in the "back" portion of the horse brings in
facing, which is supposed to be absent from 3E.

Can anyone illuminate this topic for me?

[/color]

 

[Stalker0]

Your right, by moving in to 5ft melee range you subject your stead to attack of oppurtunity. THe solutions?

1) Reach weapon.

2) Mounted Combat. With a good ride check, your mounts AC for the AOO will be very high.

3) Ride by attack, elminates this problem.

Also remember, though that if you have a warhorse, and the enemy moves in to strike you, that the horse gets an AOO on him. This keeps things simple, and does make good combat sense.

However, if you don't think this is realistic enough, unless the guy is monster or high level fighter, feel free to invoke morale checks for fear, since a charging horse is a frightful thing to guy on the ground.

 

[RobNJ]

Your right, by moving in to 5ft melee range you subject your stead to attack of oppurtunity.

I suppose it never occurred to me that it might just be the way things were intended. It feels like a mistake.

2) Mounted Combat. With a good ride check, your mounts AC for the AOO will be very high.

Unfortunately that's only effective for the first attack (or whichever attack the defender chooses--it need not be the first).

3) Ride by attack, elminates this problem.

Well, versus the person you're attacking. If there's more than one there, it doesn't.

So you would agree that having the mount run sideways is silly beyond the point of making any sense?

Also remember, though that if you have a warhorse, and the enemy moves in to strike you, that the horse gets an AOO on him. This keeps things simple, and does make good combat sense.

Yeah, but often that won't happen. If we're in a line, you, then my horse's head, then me, then all you have to do is take a 5' step and attack which doesn't provoke an AoO.

However, if you don't think this is realistic enough, unless the guy is monster or high level fighter, feel free to invoke morale checks for fear, since a charging horse is a frightful thing to guy on the ground.

I suppose. I was more looking for what the official rules were and if I've misunderstood them, than I was to add a new rules system.

 

[Stalker0]

I suppose it never occurred to me that it might just be the way things were intended. It feels like a mistake.

Well, if you look at reality, this is exactly what happens. You charge in, the guy with the big stick tries to poke on the horse, then you wail on him.


Unfortunately that's only effective for the first attack (or whichever attack the defender chooses--it need not be the first).

True, but it is a way to negate the AOO.

Well, versus the person you're attacking. If there's more than one there, it doesn't.

If your running through a group of guys, your going to get pelted on whether your on the back of the horse or on the horses head, rideby attack or not.

So you would agree that having the mount run sideways is silly beyond the point of making any sense?

Yes, that would be silly. I would say turning the mount is a free movement, but it can only move straight, it can't move sideways. You could have it run a distance and then turn sideways though.

Yeah, but often that won't happen. If we're in a line, you, then my horse's head, then me, then all you have to do is take a 5' step and attack which doesn't provoke an AoO.

The whole point of being on the horse is really that your not going to be going toe to toe with a guy, that you can move about. Considering on a charge, you can have the horse run (meaning x4 speed!!) past a guy, hit him with an attack, take the AOO with your mounted combat, and run way the far past him, most likely he won't be able to even get close to you.