Anemic Horses

[WalterKovacs]

The main "flaw" of the system is that, in order to simplify things, they have only full speed and "slowed". This means that there isn't a "slower than full speed but not ridiculously slow" speed.

But there are non-mount options [vehicles like carts] which don't have he slowed restriction. If the point is overland speed ... even with a "secondary" class for weight, the heavier members of the party would lower the groups speed either walking [because of armor] or because they reduce the speed of their horses [even if you add a weight class between the slowed and full speed].

 

[Syrsuro]

My houserule is to simply add a medium load category: encumbrance exceeding the light load reduces the horse's speed by 2 - both realistic and not crippling, in my opinion. More than twice the load results in the actual 'slowed' effect of having the mount's speed reduced TO 2.

Another viable solution and one that is preferable to increasing the weight capacity of all mounts across the board, imho.

The question is whether you make this increase for both tactical movement and overland movement or for only one or the other.

Carl

 

[Hadrian the Builder]

*edited*

 

[CubeKnight]

Can someone point me to the "ZOMG! Horses are TOO STRONG!" threads from 3x, since I can't otherwise understand why WOTC decided to "fix" the general Strength/Encumbrance rules, which for the first time in D&D history made sense and allowed for dragons and giants who weren't crushed under their own weight?

Linear strength formulas of any sort don't work for the scale of beings D&D (and D&D style) games need to quantify. The exponential+size mod system of 3x (lifted directly from Hero) worked fine, and imposed virtually no time cost in play. The new system gives us halfling supermen and crippled elephants, for no gain in "fun" that I can tell.

The famous Hulkin Hurler was only possible because of the exponential nature of carrying capacity.

 

[jbear]

an overburdened untrained riding horse is more likely to throw whatever is on its back off or stop dead rather han move slowly in a heated battle. A war horse is a different story, but we are talking about a dragon born trying to ride away to safety with a companion on a normal riding horse, so, there you go... I see him and his friend tossed hard to the ground with a good kick in the nackers for good measure...

 

[darkadelphia]

Depriving half the characters of a level 3 magic item is not a quick and easy solution, it's just changing the nature of the hidden penalty imposed on players for playing the character they want to.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

The famous Hulkin Hurler was only possible because of the exponential nature of carrying capacity.

That's an argument against the Hulking Hurler class, not carrying capacity. It's foolish to base something's combat damage off of what it can lift. Elephants can carry over 600 kg on their backs, but D&D 4e sez too that they can only carry 312 lbs, or less than 1/4 of the actual figure. Totally ridiculous.

Also, adding +50% carrying capacity DOES NOT solve the problem, even if that were a rational way to solve it. +50% of <1/4 of a feasible value =/= a feasible value.

The horse issue is less severe, but just as silly. A 2 ton warhorse that works out every day and eats half its body weight in oats is just not going to have a problem carrying a plated monster on his back. I seriously can't believe this conversation is still going.

Oh, and did anyone notice that barding is completely out of the question unless your character is a halfling? A warhorse can carry 262 lbs. Light barding weighs 40 lbs. That means if you are wearing armor you have to weigh less than 150 lbs. Except that heavy barding weighs 80 lbs. So if you're a paladin with full plate and a shield, and you're on top your warhorse in heavy barding? You had better be one tiny paladin with no gear!

 

[Starbuck_II]

That's an argument against the Hulking Hurler class, not carrying capacity. It's foolish to base something's combat damage off of what it can lift. Elephants can carry over 600 kg on their backs, but D&D 4e sez too that they can only carry 312 lbs, or less than 1/4 of the actual figure. Totally ridiculous.

Also, adding +50% carrying capacity DOES NOT solve the problem, even if that were a rational way to solve it. +50% of <1/4 of a feasible value =/= a feasible value.

The horse issue is less severe, but just as silly. A 2 ton warhorse that works out every day and eats half its body weight in oats is just not going to have a problem carrying a plated monster on his back. I seriously can't believe this conversation is still going.

Oh, and did anyone notice that barding is completely out of the question unless your character is a halfling? A warhorse can carry 262 lbs. Light barding weighs 40 lbs. That means if you are wearing armor you have to weigh less than 150 lbs. Except that heavy barding weighs 80 lbs. So if you're a paladin with full plate and a shield, and you're on top your warhorse in heavy barding? You had better be one tiny paladin with no gear!

Finally, a benefit that is visible for being small. Halfings and Gnomes of the world rejoice!@

 

[Lizard]

The famous Hulkin Hurler was only possible because of the exponential nature of carrying capacity.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean/imply. Was the PrC supposed to be broken, or something?

 

[Starbuck_II]

Not sure what that's supposed to mean/imply. Was the PrC supposed to be broken, or something?

If throwing the moon or a mountain isn't broken; what is?