D&D General Elephants are cheaper than Warhorses

[Mannahnin]

Se either from lore or rules perspective it makes no sense whatsoever.

Eh. I think we've got some unshared assumptions.

Yeah, it still does not make sense. Draft horse cost 50 gp. There is no way in hell that a domesticated elephant would cost only four times as much.

I think we'd need significantly more data to conclude that there's "no way". Are you assuming that because they're both on the general price list, that in any given area both are always by default available to buy and competing against each other? I'm not sure I'd assume that.

Furthermore, IIRC by the rules, this supposed expensive training of the warhorse doesn't do much. It will carry you around just like any other mount. Paying eight times the price of the draft horse gives your mount one point higher AC and that's it! Whoop-de-doo! It has also marginally better attack damage and trampling charge, but it cannot actually use those when someone is riding it. Meanwhile costing four times as much than a draft horse, an elephant gets your mount two points higher AC and 57 hit points more! It also has much more powerful attack than either horse and trampling charge, but again, it cannot actually use those while being ridden.

Did 5E entirely ditch the rules that non-warhorses either won't willingly participate in combat (those stats are for when they're forced to fight, ie: like being attacked by wolves when they're stuck in a pen or on a tether), or have to take a morale test every single round or bolt? That used to be one of the substantial advantages of a warhorse.

If so, than your analysis of the pricing from a pure game stats perspective may be on target, and maybe the pricing is a legacy holdover in part from when the game had more rules that have since gone missing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Eh. I think we've got some unshared assumptions.


I think we'd need significantly more data to conclude that there's "no way". Are you assuming that because they're both on the general price list, that in any given area both are always by default available to buy and competing against each other? I'm not sure I'd assume that.

I mean I'd assume that in most typical medieval Europianish setting elephants would not be available at all, or if they were they would be imported rare and exotic animals and thus would cost even more than they would in environment they're commonly available. Though that is not a factor I'd necessarily expect the general price list to reflect.

Did 5E entirely ditch the rules that non-warhorses either won't willingly participate in combat (those stats are for when they're forced to fight, ie: like being attacked by wolves when they're stuck in a pen or on a tether), or have to take a morale test every single round or bolt? That used to be one of the substantial advantages of a warhorse.

If so, than your analysis of the pricing from a pure game stats perspective may be on target, and maybe the pricing is a legacy holdover in part from when the game had more rules that have since gone missing.

I don't recall any such rules. You can either control the animal, an it acts on your initiative, and can only move and dash, or you can allow it to act independently, and it has it's own initiative and does what it wants. This of course is super inconvenient, if you actually want to attack on your turn. Now one might assume that training of the warhorse would entail it doing more sensible things in combat, if let to act independently but nowhere is such a thing stated. And of course elephants attacks are way more powerful, so it makes more sense for let it act independently. And back to real world logic, elephants are not timid animals like horses, so they're not prone to panic and run away in combat same way than a horse would.

TL;DR is that the warhorse actually doesn't do basically anything justifying its price by the rules, and even in the real world I really doubt they would compare favourably to an elephant.

And yeah, it might be a legacy issue, but surely after then years of people pointing out how weird this is, they would have fixed it in this revised edition?

 

[Vaalingrade]

I mean I'd assume that in most typical medieval Europianish setting elephants would not be available at all, or if they were they would be imported rare and exotic animals and thus would cost even more than they would in environment they're commonly available. Though that is not a factor I'd necessarily expect the general price list to reflect.

I feel like assuming 'typical medieval Europeanish' is a far leap since D&D's settings have been none of those things for decades except as shorthand description that was never accurate.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I feel like assuming 'typical medieval Europeanish' is a far leap since D&D's settings have been none of those things for decades except as shorthand description that was never accurate.

Sure. Thus I said I wouldn't the price list to reflect that. But it was answer to the question whether I'd expect both to be available in every location.

 

[Mannahnin]

I mean I'd assume that in most typical medieval Europianish setting elephants would not be available at all, or if they were they would be imported rare and exotic animals and thus would cost even more than they would in environment they're commonly available. Though that is not a factor I'd necessarily expect the general price list to reflect.

Right. I don't assume the prices of the two items are necessarily meant to reflect their comparative worth in an environment where they're both options. I might presume it more likely that a given campaign setting or region would predominantly employ one or the other.

TL;DR is that the warhorse actually doesn't do basically anything justifying its price by the rules, and even in the real world I really doubt they would compare favourably to an elephant.

In the real world I think they might, though I'm not sure apples to apples comparisons of them as war mounts have been done. I think war horses might have greater agility and speed, lesser amount of feed needed, be able to access more places and ride in tighter formations, be easier to fight from the back of because you're not so high off the ground, be barded more cheaply... They might have a better temperament for the role, too. I'm speaking from limited knowledge of both, but I wouldn't assume that an elephant is always superior despite its greater size and strength.

I don't recall any such rules. You can either control the animal, an it acts on your initiative, and can only move and dash, or you can allow it to act independently, and it has it's own initiative and does what it wants. This of course is super inconvenient, if you actually want to attack on your turn. Now one might assume that training of the warhorse would entail it doing more sensible things in combat, if let to act independently but nowhere is such a thing stated. And of course elephants attacks are way more powerful, so it makes more sense for let it act independently. And back to real world logic, elephants are not timid animals like horses, so they're not prone to panic and run away in combat same way than a horse would.

....

And yeah, it might be a legacy issue, but surely after then years of people pointing out how weird this is, they would have fixed it in this revised edition?

Right. I feel like this is the oversight. WotC has tried to simplify the mounted combat rules, but still hasn't hit on the right combination of playability and clarity and fun, while passing the sniff test for people who are familiar with the animals in the real world or in fantasy fiction. 5e is supposed to use natural language and rely on DM judgement and real world knowledge to let people employ their Invisible Rulebooks rather than spelling everything out as precisely as 3e and 4e did. But there are a few sticking points and I feel like mounted combat is another area, like stealth, where they have had a lot of trouble.

 

[Stormonu]

Beyond the economy oddities, I wish there was better support for mounts, mounted combat and animal companions. The game should be able to support the likes of Beastmaster, Lone Ranger's Silver, Lassie, Samwise's Bill and the like without you necessarily having to be a ranger. The new ranger is a step in a right direction with scaling HP, but having a (Fighter) Knight or just making mounts and mounted combat more viable.

Having the most efficient method for characters to be getting around long distance being on foot just seems weird.

 

[MarkB]

More importantly, what's the cost for a peasant with a strong back and two empty coconut-halves?

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Any special rule for animal companions? Maybe something style like nPC classes for ally minions, but let's remember animals don't wear armour or boots. Have you walked any time in a beach where the sand is too stony?