Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 4506097" data-attributes="member: 1645">If hit points (and other stats) are abstract, I don't see any real problem with mounts advancing along with their riders.  I also don't see a big problem with mounts "borrowing" stats from their riders -- under Lancelot, the same war horse performs better in combat than under a lesser knight.I don't think horses are fragile so much as they're vulnerable to a few specific things, such arrows, because they're difficult (not impossible) to armor or protect with a shield, and treacherous terrain.I think we can agree that Bucephalus  is an exception, but so was Alexander the Great.  Can't high-level characters routinely ride high-level mounts?  It's a staple of the source material, after all.Isn't the contention that William personally lost 12 horses, killed underneath him?  There are similar stories of officers in later, gunpowder wars, having numerous horses shot out from underneath them.  There the emphasis, again, is not on horses' fragility, but on the personal bravery of the rider, who remained in obvious danger to lead his men.Again, I think that's fixable.That is definitely how we've treated horses -- an important bit of loot that you don't want to kill.</blockquote>