Get off Your High Horse...

[GMMichael]

...and get your butt kicked!

There's a reason that the word "cavalry" used to strike fear into the hearts of footmen. Or "Khan." I'm going to chalk it up to a warhorse being a 2,000-pound murder-machine. A footman probably doesn't want to be trampled by such a thing, much less impaled by the big, spikey thing that its rider likely carries.

So, does your warrior use a horse? Does it work as well for you as it does for the Tree Sentinel (see video)? Do RPGs give mounted troops the capabilities that they deserve?

 

[Jd Smith1]

It depends upon the period. In the feudal period, armored horsemen were the dominant factor on the battlefield. In the medieval period you saw the evolution of infantry formations that, so long as they held their ground, were immune to cavalry. As the decades roll on, horsemen devolve further and further in power and utility.

The thing is, a horse is not a 'murder machine'. It is a beast prone to many ailments, expensive to raise and maintain, and inclined to self-preservation. Horses generally will not, unless intensely trained, trample or even step on a person.

The reason cavalry was useful was because they rode stirrup -to-stirrup, en masse, bearing armored men able to strike from a height. And if the foot lost formation, it would be a slaughter as the horsemen rode them down.

But a horseman by himself is not a particularly advantaged foe. He cannot protect his mount's vulnerable legs, he is fully exposed, and he cannot turn quickly. A horse-hook can drag him from his mount, a nimble foe with a knife can hamstring his horse, and a torch to the face will turn a war horse into a panicked beast. He is at a disadvantage in urban areas or in trees and heavy brush.

So PCs very seldom fight mounted in my fantasy campaigns, or at seldom do it twice.

 

[Ixal]

Many RPGs, D&D included while having mounted rules for completeness sake (or not in some cases) try to dissuade players from using horses by removing all advantages a horse will give in a combat, including having to spend your actions for your horse to move.

On a small scale a mounted archer or crossbowmen would be as powerful as a flying archer. Unless the enemy has ranged weapons he is invulnerable.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

...and get your butt kicked!

There's a reason that the word "cavalry" used to strike fear into the hearts of footmen. Or "Khan." I'm going to chalk it up to a warhorse being a 2,000-pound murder-machine. A footman probably doesn't want to be trampled by such a thing, much less impaled by the big, spikey thing that its rider likely carries.

So, does your warrior use a horse? Does it work as well for you as it does for the Tree Sentinel (see video)? Do RPGs give mounted troops the capabilities that they deserve?

The Pathfinder 2E and D&D 5E rules might not be great for mounts, but it doesn't deter me. I wanna see my halfling player wreak havoc while riding his bear so yeah, of course I'm gonna make that more rad than the vanilla rules.

My players don't get all jealous, though. They'd all think that PC is freaking awesome.

 

[Grogg of the North]

The biggest deterrent to mounted combat in 3.5/PF was how easy it was for your mount to just get shot out from under you, especially at higher levels. So unless you invested in a class that gains a special mount or animal companion, your horse is one fireball away from being soft cover. Never mind if you have to go inside anywhere and your horse can't go with you. Mounted combat definitely has its place but I don't know how I'd change it for the better.

 

[GMMichael]

The thing is, a horse is not a 'murder machine'. It is a beast prone to many ailments, expensive to raise and maintain, and inclined to self-preservation. Horses generally will not, unless intensely trained, trample or even step on a person.

I think you just described tankers and their tanks. But you're right, an actual murder machine is more like a lion, but contrary to your following list...

. . .He cannot protect his mount's vulnerable legs, he is fully exposed, and he cannot turn quickly. A horse-hook can drag him from his mount, a nimble foe with a knife can hamstring his horse, and a torch to the face will turn a war horse into a panicked beast. He is at a disadvantage in urban areas or in trees and heavy brush.

warhorses can also dominate. Put some barding on the beast, and even if it won't trample a footman, that footman probably doesn't want to stick around to find out. A horseman doesn't need to turn quickly if she's using the charge as her primary tactic. Not so useful in movement-restricted areas, but that's just combat. What says, "hey you should worship me" better than riding an armored horse down the street?

The biggest deterrent to mounted combat in 3.5/PF was how easy it was for your mount to just get shot out from under you, especially at higher levels. So unless you invested in a class that gains a special mount or animal companion, your horse is one fireball away from being soft cover.

Which is unfortunate, because you'd expect a 90% combat game (snark) to be respectful of cavalry. Although, I'm not sure that's the bulk of the issue - aren't there other mounts that PCs can use at higher levels? Ones that are less, to use your example, flammable?

I use horseriding rules that emphasize the defensive advantage of mobility; when a horseman rides by, you have to make your choice: dodge or attack. Then you have to wait for the next charge. Being mounted also allows the rider to use one of the stronger one-handed weapons in the game: the lance. But I can see some additional rules touching on:

• It's harder to damage a moving horseman than a stationary one.
• Attacking from horseback gives your attack more momentum, but less accuracy.
• Unlike in the OP video, using long/long-shafted weapons is very tricky on horseback...

 

[Dausuul]

Many RPGs, D&D included while having mounted rules for completeness sake (or not in some cases) try to dissuade players from using horses by removing all advantages a horse will give in a combat, including having to spend your actions for your horse to move.

On a small scale a mounted archer or crossbowmen would be as powerful as a flying archer. Unless the enemy has ranged weapons he is invulnerable.

Yep. Horse archers are devastating in terrain that favors them, both in D&D and real life. (See: Mongols. Though in their case, the logistical benefits were even greater than the tactical ones.)

Of course, the qualifier in that sentence is kind of important. Dungeons are not what you'd call cavalry-friendly. Even if you can get your mount inside, there's seldom room to take advantage of its mobility.

But in outdoor encounters, horses are amazing for archers and casters--and for melee warriors chasing down evasive foes.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I think you just described tankers and their tanks. But you're right, an actual murder machine is more like a lion, but contrary to your following list...

warhorses can also dominate. Put some barding on the beast, and even if it won't trample a footman, that footman probably doesn't want to stick around to find out. A horseman doesn't need to turn quickly if she's using the charge as her primary tactic. Not so useful in movement-restricted areas, but that's just combat. What says, "hey you should worship me" better than riding an armored horse down the street?

Armor increases the cost, lowers the mobility, and still leaves the horse's legs exposed. For a stirrup-to-stirrup charge by a battle of 50 knights, sure. As one or just a couple of PCs on horseback, its just wrapping a turkey in tinfoil. The rider still can't protect the rear, the lower legs, or change facing. Still vulnerable to horse hooks, hamstringing, and spooking the mount. There are far too many historical examples of what happens when three or four horsemen face off against motivated footmen.

And then there's the massive disadvantage of a mounted attack in small scale fighting: a horse charges in a straight line. A big horse carrying an armored rider is not nimble, even less so if it is barded. A braced polearm can cause a horse to either veer away (bad), halt, (really bad), or impale itself (terrible).

PCs on horseback are vulnerable. They do not have the advantages of cavalry (mass, momentum, and an enemy unable to maneuver), while retaining all the weaknesses (mount prone to fear & reaction to pain, inability to secure back, vulnerable legs, low immediate maneuverability).

Who here hasn't been riding a horse and have it suddenly shy away from a partridge breaking cover?

 

[aramis erak]

It depends upon the period. In the feudal period, armored horsemen were the dominant factor on the battlefield. In the medieval period you saw the evolution of infantry formations that, so long as they held their ground, were immune to cavalry. As the decades roll on, horsemen devolve further and further in power and utility.

The thing is, a horse is not a 'murder machine'. It is a beast prone to many ailments, expensive to raise and maintain, and inclined to self-preservation. Horses generally will not, unless intensely trained, trample or even step on a person.

You need to hit the books there, friend... you left out their normal attack modes - kicks and bites. Thoroughbreds and Arabians are notoriously "hot blooded" and will readily attack with hoot, shoulder, and teeth at any startle or provocation. Many breeds will readily attack humans who startle or scare them, or appear threatening, or who use pain to motivate them.

Last time I was at the stable, the stallion was more than happy to push his groom around physically. (I think he was a Clydesdale - withers at my nose, so about 5'5", able to rest his head on mine - I was there for the Icelandic mares in the next stall. Sure, he didn't step on the groom, merely shoulder or hip check him into the railings. I had to hand-twitch¹ him to back him off of me while I was harnessing the icy... once; he had been batting me atop the head with his chin. He never again hassled me after I grabbed his lip. But he pushed his groom about mercilessly.)

I know a few jousters, too... their horses have no compunctions about pushing people about. At least, as long as the person doesn't push back. Or twitch¹ them, Or take their reins. If their normal rider or groom hands off the reins, they tend to behave as long as the owner or groom is around.

Horses are not safe to be around unless very well trained, and the horse knows you, or has a groom, rider, or other known person with. Even then, a horse can accidentally injure one quite easily; most horse-caused injury is accidental.

A few decent links:

The Forgotten Story Of Meat Eating Horses - The Horseaholic

"This may have been one of the worst accounts of horses turning into carnivores, but it’s not the first. There have been many written accounts of horses

thehorseaholic.com

What is the most Dangerous Horse Breed in the World?

horsecrew.com

What Is The Most Dangerous Horse Breed? - AHF

Want to know what horse breed is the most dangerous in the world? Our simple guide tells you more about the dangers of horses and riding.

amazinghorsefacts.com

¹: Twitch - v. To grab a horse's upper lip and squeeze, usually with a loop of rope on a stick, sometimes by bare hand. The latter is risky; if you miss, you may get bitten.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I use a mount for my halfling barbarian. It has(had) a faster movement speed than my character. Getting it to disengage and then move into/out of combat gave lots of mobility. But it only had, like...5 hit points? Until it was awoken at higher levels, got some hid dice and took the mobility feat. Now it's pretty cool. Overall, though, horses in most rpgs don't give significant bonuses other than extra movement and carrying capacity for travelling overland.

If anyone was watching the Trucker Convoys in Ottawa, they used the mounted police to pretty good effect (only once) to push a line of protesters back to allow police to move their lines forward. The biggest tactic there was that the horses were big and intimidating and the crowd flinched back. The horses used their flanks and weight to push the crowd back. Two poor people got knocked over and but weren't trampled. But the crowd wasn't armed. Only one guy (wielding a bike) allegedly hurt one of the horses. (although, the horse seemed to be fine the next day). I imagine that tactic wouldn't work against polearm wielding foot-soldiers.