4th Edition Mounted Combat ... did I miss anything?

[lukelightning]

Can you imagine what the response would be if they announced that you have to wait until Paragon Tier to get a mount, and you have a limited choice based on your race?

Mounts as out-of-combat movement: Not a problem.

Mounts a mobile combat platform: Not much of a problem.

Mounts as combat platform that also can attack: Here's where trouble starts.

 

[DandD]

The other problem is mounts as mobile combat platform that grants new modes of attacks, like trampling, increased charging damage, bonus to attack-modifiers for being higher-placed and so on. And there might be more.

 

[davethegame]

It was implied by Sara Girard that Paladins don't get a mount until Paragon tier. Doesn't really answer your question, but maybe it'll be similar for other classes.

 

[Derren]

Other than that flying mounts will be core there was nothing about this topic.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Can you imagine what the response would be if they announced that you have to wait until Paragon Tier to get a mount, and you have a limited choice based on your race?

Mounts as out-of-combat movement: Not a problem.

Mounts a mobile combat platform: Not much of a problem.

Mounts as combat platform that also can attack: Here's where trouble starts.

I think 4e has a better infrastructure to deal with this issue than previous editions, because of the concept of Minions.

I would just say normal horses or other standard mounts are only capable of giving a bonus to the rider or killing a Minion.

That way you have the room to allow horse survivability to ratchet up with level without having their damage output be dangerously high. What is the horse's damage output? Enough to kill a Minion and nothing else.

If you want a more potent mount, you need to spend Feats or have a class ability to gain a Cohort/Companion or the equivalent.

 

[IceFractal]

A lot of things have been swept under the rug for game balance in 4E, mostly successfully; but here, I think they've hit a roadblock.

Horses are a double-hazard. Not only are they a huge sticking point for realism, they're also a genre staple. And that's a killer, because most people who could ignore the realism issues are going to cry foul when knights in shining armor all have to become pedestrians, and vice-versa.

And as to how far you can minimize the effect in combat - not that far. At the least, the very least, horses have to grant superior mobility. But more importantly, the entire point of horses in combat is that they give you an advantage. Trying to go against this is like trying to say that having weapons and armor shouldn't give a warrior an advantage in battle.

 

[frankthedm]

The problem with Mounts is twofold:

1. It follows the same problems as the Summoning/Animal Friend problem. If you have a second creature you control it can take up more time at the table and thus hurt peoples feelings, or something like that..

Generally it is less hurt feeling and more of “when is it going to get to my turn?” or “Am I even needed in the fight?” 1d4+1 Augmented Summoned animals hit with an Animal growth spell will make most front line characters wonder about their role in the party. Especially if that summon pack has improved grab.

A cool mount can lead to hurt feelings because there are so few ways to get one. The Paladin is sitting pretty with his, but any other character has to take a sub optimum cohort choice and / or get the DM to put higher HD mounts on the market.

2. So you spend some cash and now you have a whole slew of bonuses. It's stepping outside the itemization they've built for themselves in 4e. By a mount, and voila! Faster movement, possible extra actions, at the very least extra combat maneuvers (more options, more flexibility).

If you put this in a magic item, it'd be priced very high, and not available at lower levels... except that it's just a horse, so it also makes no sense at all to price them astronomically higher than normal purchases, and to limit the level would make me a sad Panda.

The 4e system has painted itself into a corner of mechanics that makes Horses and Mounted combat a little bit awkward to implement. I'm not surprised at all that it won't be in the first PHB.. but I'm a little surprised that it might have been forgotten when balancing the rest of the mechanics in the game.

Yeah, it does sound like the rider would have to choose between making his attack or having the mount make it’s attack. Al least then the balance would just need to be made between the rider’s at will and the mounts at will. Using the griffon for an example, at what level does a player have at will attacks comparable to two attacks at +12 for 2d6+8?

And that still leaves HP issues. Attacks directed at the mount are attacks not directed at the party, functioning as Bonus HP. Healing mounts that the party does want to keep alive will be a problem since healing surges are now the main ‘healing method’ and only paladins can ‘give’ them to others. the mount might have one, but this means that it's role will be more of a ride to get to the adventure, rather than the mount you have the adventure with.

Also would push, pull and slide take folks off their mounts? If they do being mounted while airborn is WORSE that in 3E where maximized fireballs ashed mounts. If they don’t, that will be a huge powerdown to the abilities that work off those mechanics.

DIRE WOLF
LEVEL 5 SKIRMISHER
LARGE NATURAL BEAST
INIT +5 SPD 8
AC 19 FORT 11 REF 14 WILL 14
HP/Bloodied: 47/23
Senses Perception +9
ATTACKS: Bite +12 (Str) vs AC; 1d10+4 AND Follow-up
Follow-up +7 vs Ref, requires cbt adv; knock prone
Gnaw +5 dmg to prone.
ABILITIES: Pack Hunter Cbt adv if ally adj to target
STR +6 (18) CON +6 (19) DEX +5 (16) INT -1 (5) WIS +4 (14) CHA +2 (11

Griffon
Large Natural Beast
Level 7 Brute
AC 19 Fort 19 Ref 17 Will 16 HP/Bloodied 67/33
Init +8 Spd 6 Fly 10
Senses: Perception +10
Immune: Fear
Attacks
Basic Melee: Claw; +12 vs AC; 2d6+8
Melee: Twin Claw; Standard; 2 Basic Melee attacks
Melee: Thunder Dive: Standard, charge while flying, +4 attack
Abilities
Death Frenzy: Once Bloodied; extra move each rd, +2 atk, -2 Def
Str +7 (18) Con +8 (21) Dex +8 (20) Int -1 (2) Wis +5 (15) Cha +6 (16)

 

[WalterKovacs]

In terms of economy of actions ... one way to deal with a mount is basically treat it as an extension of the rider.

Basically, a mount has certain exploits of it's own, and to "make" it use one of those things, the rider has to use one of his actions. Making the mount move is a move action, making the mount trample is a standard action, etc. So you can trample OR attack on horse back, but you don't have two different sets of actions. It would be like a magic item to some extent, granting extra at-will/per enounter powers, but not actually giving you another set of minor/move/standard actions to use every turn. Similar to the problem with having something like a cohort or summoned creature, etc.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I could also see something where your command to do something is a minor-action. Which then gives bonuses onto the move and standard action.

So minor-action: Move
Move Action: Minor-Action gives +3 squares

Minor-action: Trample
Standard action: Minor-action gives stun/fall prone ability ontop of attack.

So you would sorta weave both the movement and commands of your mount into your own normal actions.

 

[lukelightning]

At least with the removal of iterative attacks we won't have the abuse where the mounted warrior dashes across the board on the back of a dire giraffe then makes 3 attacks plus the giraffe's kick.