Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jd Smith1" data-source="post: 8562687" data-attributes="member: 6998052">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?</blockquote>