D&D General Mounted Archers

[GreyLord]

This isnt true, actually. Mounted archers historically were using full powered war bows at full draw.

Mount should benefit from your movement and defense features, like the speedie feats disad on OA against you.

Depends on the Mounted Archer. During the Crusades one of the better groups of mounted archers (not on the Crusader's side...by the way) had a new type of recurve bow with laminate. This gave them stronger strength and pull than other bows used from horseback.

That said, the Crusades are replete with stories of these arrows failing to penetrate armor (and we are not talking even about plate, we are talking about Chainmail in the beginning), or getting stuck in the mail but failing to hurt the individual underneath (with some of the targetted warriors ending up looking similar to a porcupine with all the arrows sticking out of them while they were unhurt and continued to battle mostly unhindered).

In these engagements it was absolutely MORE effective the closer and lighter armored your enemy was if your bows were going to have a chance to actually hurt them (and hurt the Crusaders they did, but it really was dependent on how close they could get and how heavily or lightly armored their target was).

That said, the composite bows were also useful, but none of them were similar to the English Longbow (which is a different story). Modern tests have shown that the Longbow has great power, but even the Longbow has trouble penetrating a fully plated warrior (which is where firearms eventually get very popular).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Depends on the Mounted Archer. During the Crusades one of the better groups of mounted archers (not on the Crusader's side...by the way) had a new type of recurve bow with laminate. This gave them stronger strength and pull than other bows used from horseback.

That said, the Crusades are replete with stories of these arrows failing to penetrate armor (and we are not talking even about plate, we are talking about Chainmail in the beginning), or getting stuck in the mail but failing to hurt the individual underneath (with some of the targetted warriors ending up looking similar to a porcupine with all the arrows sticking out of them while they were unhurt and continued to battle mostly unhindered).

In these engagements it was absolutely MORE effective the closer and lighter armored your enemy was if your bows were going to have a chance to actually hurt them (and hurt the Crusaders they did, but it really was dependent on how close they could get and how heavily or lightly armored their target was).

That said, the composite bows were also useful, but none of them were similar to the English Longbow (which is a different story). Modern tests have shown that the Longbow has great power, but even the Longbow has trouble penetrating a fully plated warrior (which is where firearms eventually get very popular).

See; Mongolian and Japanese mounted archers.

 

[Seramus]

Take the Dodge action to hang sideways on your horse and lower your profile against enemy archers!

 

[Stormonu]

Not only bowmen, but also hurling spears and the like. In Tomb of Annihilation, I had a dragonborn paladin riding an allosaurus (named Diana, after the animated series Primal) who I would hurl javelins at foes from dinoback.

Also, didn't the mongols wear an undershirt of silk for some benefit it provided against arrow attacks? I forget the reason, whether it was easily removing the arrowhead or if it helped resist punctures....

 

[aco175]

Also, didn't the mongols wear an undershirt of silk for some benefit it provided against arrow attacks? I forget the reason, whether it was easily removing the arrowhead or if it helped resist punctures....

I think I seen where the silk would twist and not tear. This allowed the tip to be taken out easier when damaged and allowed for easier surgery.

 

[Tonguez]

Also, didn't the mongols wear an undershirt of silk for some benefit it provided against arrow attacks? I forget the reason, whether it was easily removing the arrowhead or if it helped resist punctures....

both, silk fibres are very strong under tension which meants that when an arrow head enters tightly woven silk it doesnt rip, instead it wraps around the arrow and steals momentum resulting in only shallow penetration and it also keeps the arrow from ripping flesh. Then the silk can be used to pull the arrow out without any barbs becoming stuck and causing further damage

 

[jmartkdr2]

I played a short game of Pathfinder 1e a while back where we were all mounted. We used a supplement for more interesting riding rules and it was fun; ranged didn't outshine lancers though. I don't recall any chariots but elephants with howdahs and massive rolling platforms were involved in one battle.

In 5e mounted combat is such a ribbon feature I'm not surprised I've rarely seen anyone bother. You'd just be shooting normally but moving a faster, which is either gamebreaking or meaningless depending on how big the battlemap is.

 

[humble minion]

Mounted combat (ranged or melee) in D&D is great right up until someone lobs a fireball at your 7th level party and all the 19hp horses die and then suddenly you're not a mounted party after all. Ask my 12th level paladin how often his steed lasts past the first round of combat some time.

Hit point inflation from PCs, and static hit points on mounts, kills the concept dead from a RAW mechanical perspective. I'm sure there's third party sourcebooks etc that grapple with the issue, but from a core rules point of view it just doesn't work.

 

[Marc17]

Mounted combat (ranged or melee) in D&D is great right up until someone lobs a fireball at your 7th level party and all the 19hp horses die and then suddenly you're not a mounted party after all. Ask my 12th level paladin how often his steed lasts past the first round of combat some time.

Hit point inflation from PCs, and static hit points on mounts, kills the concept dead from a RAW mechanical perspective. I'm sure there's third party sourcebooks etc that grapple with the issue, but from a core rules point of view it just doesn't work.

We're talking mounted archers. Stay separated and far away. Bows have a much greater range than a fireball spell. And mounted warriors should have more than one mount.

 

[Koloth]

We're talking mounted archers. Stay separated and far away. Bows have a much greater range than a fireball spell. And mounted warriors should have more than one mount.

Might depend on the system. Both 3.5 and PF1 have long bows with range increments of 100ft. Short bows are less. Fireball range starts at 400ft + 40ft/lvl, or a minimum of 600ft. A smart mage will start shooting while the archers are still 5+ range increments out. In most systems, mounts do tend to be ablative armor or living distractions. A spare mount back in camp doesn't help much when yours is shot/eaten/incinerated out from under you during the attack. And if the spare is with you, it is probably dead from the same thing that dismounted you.

Don't know which system or if it was an optional thing but I seem to remember a brief time when mounts could level with the characters to avoid becoming mostly useless in the mid and higher levels.