Do Mounts change combat?

[robotsinmyhead]

Currently, I'm involved in an online game where we utilize rotating DMs. The game is 99% combat with very little RP and no out-of-combat action. We have a fairly democratic system of voting in new content (books, house rules) and recently the question of Mounts has arisen.

At 7th level and gaining the DMG prescribed GP amount every week, mounts are fairly easy to buy, and in my opinion, significantly alter the game to the point where the concept of the game itself (hack-and-slash with 3-4 players) is lost.

The only strict subscriber to pushing for mounts in the game is a wizard. He can easily afford a Griffon at this level, and I believe that he, more than the other players, will benefit from his mount (flight + magic missiles and nearly 100hp of extra damage keeping him there). His arguement is that mounts can die and therefore are "very balanced" for this sort of game.

So basically, I just want some opinions (or just general discussion) on how mounts affect 4e combat. Please keep in mind that this game is entirely combat based (no feeding mounts, worrying about upkeep etc) and the only real factor in having a mount is the ocassional indoor encounter and the possibility of it dying and having to replace it.

 

[Callowbran]

I have not played with mounts, so I can't say if I find them unbalancing but...

If you (the DM) find them to be unbalancing, do one of four things:

1. Give enemies mounts.
2. Make an enemy able to knock a PC off a mount (splatter-city). PCs will think twice about flight.
3. If mounts are so readily available and amazing, then demand for a mount will go up, and prices will rise... (supply & demand)
4. Force PCs to actually care for their mounts: fodder, grooming, brushing, cleaning cages. Think about what might happen to a mount when PCs are on an extended dungeon delve. Ever tried to comfort a lonely hippogriff?

 

[jodyjohnson]

Healing mounts seems limited due to lack of surges (1 for Heroic) so if you are using mounts as an extra source of HP they may end up dead in short order.

 

[darkadelphia]

Mounts won't work indoors. I don't know the exact format of your game, but if the majority of encounters take place indoors/somewhere mounts can't get, then it should not be too bad.

 

[robotsinmyhead]

Mounts won't work indoors. I don't know the exact format of your game, but if the majority of encounters take place indoors/somewhere mounts can't get, then it should not be too bad.

They do "work" indoors, but they receive a -2 to attacks and all defenses insides (except for mounts that are normal inside like Blade Spiders), and while this is a viable option, I highly doubt everyone wants to do every encounter in a cramped dungeon.

As for healing mounts, while this is a valid point, most mounts have Monster-sized HP (~double that of PCs) and I'm assuming that the death of the mount will not be all that common unless the DM strictly goes for it. At which point, we're back to the starting point - the DM now has to plan for the addition of mounts.

 

[Squire James]

Since you rotate DM's, I suggest each DM declare which mounts (if any) are allowed for each encounter. Mounts are great in certain encounters, but totally useless in others. Then you can encourage each other to run a variety of encounters where the mounts may or may not be useful. You may decide mounts are the best things since sliced bread, or you may find them too big a pain to handle. That, of course, can affect one's decision on whether to purchase a mount.

 

[Victim]

As for healing mounts, while this is a valid point, most mounts have Monster-sized HP (~double that of PCs) and I'm assuming that the death of the mount will not be all that common unless the DM strictly goes for it.

Yeah, mount death isn't very likely in a single encounter. On the other, over a long adventuring day, especially one with area attacks and auras, the mount's lack of healing surges might prove a significant issue.

 

[WalterKovacs]

A quick peak at the DMG:

(a) The mount adds some extra powers to a PC, but not extra actions
(b) When attacking, you can target either the mount or the PC without any penalty. The Griffin doesn't really do anything about it

So, basically, the wizard is able to fly, and gets some melee attacks. The extra HP isn't really anything as any attacks can just be made against him instead of the griffin. And burst/blasts can hit them both, meaning a double chance of putting a condition on them [and, presumably, sharing a single set of actions, would also mean they'd share conditions like dazed/stunned/etc].

They also need to invest in more than just the mount [they need a saddle or get a penalty to AC, Reflex and attack rolls on the mount; they need the Mounted combat to have the mount fight effectively, and to get access to the mounts special powers].

EDIT:

Just an extra note - Flying creatures that don't have hover MUST move 2 squares every turn to stay in the air. Similarly, they can't make OAs, and they can't shift, unless they have the ability to hover. Hovering foes are VERY dangerous against non-hovering flyers, as you have people able to stay in place, shift and most importantly make OAs against a creature that has to move OR 'crash', either would provoke the OA.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Mounts don't really change combat from what I've seen. But, that's because I attack the PCs and not the mounts. If it was like real life, and you had to worry about the horses going on a rampage even if the rider was dead, then mounts would be absolutely obscene.

However, mounts:

-are tedious
-need to be fed
-need to be watered
-suck in dungeons
-cost money
-can die
-suck at getting healed
-easily stolen
-can be dominated, unlike your magic sword

There are plenty of drawbacks. They don't grant huge advantages, other than having megatons of HP (which can be ignored by simply targeting the PC).

 

[WalterKovacs]

Mounts don't really change combat from what I've seen. But, that's because I attack the PCs and not the mounts. If it was like real life, and you had to worry about the horses going on a rampage even if the rider was dead, then mounts would be absolutely obscene.

However, mounts:

-are tedious
-need to be fed
-need to be watered
-suck in dungeons
-cost money
-can die
-suck at getting healed
-easily stolen
-can be dominated, unlike your magic sword

There are plenty of drawbacks. They don't grant huge advantages, other than having megatons of HP (which can be ignored by simply targeting the PC).

They mostly provide mobility [although, being larger, they do limit mobility as well. You are considered to be squeezed whenever they have to squeeze into a tight spot. It's also important that the heavier characters with lots of gear keep in might weight limits for the mounts, plus the saddles and any other gear they put on the creature because a mount with a "heavy load" is slowed, and thus, pretty useless as a means of getting around, either in or out of a fight.]

So it provides:

Mobility in combat

Some bonus powers that require feat(s) and equipment to do properly [there is a mounted gladiator style that allows a warlord to have his mount make the attack with commander's strike, for example]

Faster overland speed outside of combat

Can be used as a make shift flanker if you split up. [correct me if I'm wrong]. So, the Rogue might have a pet mount just for that purpose.

But there are a number of drawbacks such as resource draining [they have a cost, you need to heal them if they get hurt, you have to buy some equipment to ride them properly, and likely a feat if you want to make best use of them] and times where they aren't just not helpful in the fight, but become liabilities. Having one die becomes even more resource drain.