Help me understand mounted combat

[replicant2]

So we had our first true mounted combat during our last session. Not knowing the rules too well most of us decided to dismount right away and fight on foot , though our wizard elected to remain on horseback and cast spells from a distance.

The encounter was as follows: We were mounted on light horses, save for two party members on warhorses. We were riding through a lightly wooded area toward an enemy camp, but unfortunately for us our enemies had a spellcaster we weren't aware of and managed to get the drop on us. A line of concealed orc archers in a opened fire while several invisible opponents attacked from all sides, catching us on horseback.

We ignored some mounted combat rules for the sake of moving the game along, but afterwards I read the PHB pretty thoroughly. I think I have the rules figured out, but a few of my questions include:

Must you make a ride check (stay in saddle) if your horse takes damage? There is a direct PHB reference to this when the rider takes damage, but not his or her mount.

Does the DC 20 control mount in battle check only pertain to characters in the thick of melee? What about archers firing at a distance, or spellcasters loosing spells while stationary on a riding horse from 100' away?

For mounted archers, does the mount's movement negate the full attack option?

 

[Steve Jung]

Neither the Ride skill, nor the Mounted Combat section of the Combat chapter mention having to make Ride checks when the mount is damaged. As far as what constitutes combat, I guess it's when the horse is close enough to hear, see, or smell melee. Mounted ranged attackers can use the full attack action when the mount moves. If the mount makes a double move or runs, there are attack penalties.

You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally, so that, for instance, you can load and fire a light crossbow in a round while your mount is moving.

 

[Stalker0]

are your horses warhorses? If so, then they are just combat characters, little muss, little fuss. If they aren't, then yes there's all sorts of checks for them to get the heck out of there.

 

[replicant2]

Neither the Ride skill, nor the Mounted Combat section of the Combat chapter mention having to make Ride checks when the mount is damaged. As far as what constitutes combat, I guess it's when the horse is close enough to hear, see, or smell melee. Mounted ranged attackers can use the full attack action when the mount moves. If the mount makes a double move or runs, there are attack penalties.

Thanks for the info. I'd like to see our group house rule the no ride check for a damaged mount rule, though. I mean, I would think a horse would rear or buck if an arrow plunged into its flank.

In terms of mounted archery/melee combat, I still think a full attack option is possible only on a warhorse. On a non-combat trained mount, a successful ride check to control it in battle counts as a move-equivalent action by the book, thus allowing only one ranged (or one melee) attack, correct?

 

[Legildur]

Try these articles for some additional guidance. They may not be perfect, but they'll still help inform and even provide a few house rules for some odd situations:

Rules of the Game: All About Mounts (Part One)

Rules of the Game: All About Mounts (Part Two)

Rules of the Game: All About Mounts (Part Three)

Rules of the Game: All About Mounts (Part Four)

Rules of the Game: All About Mounts (Part Five)

 

[Hypersmurf]

In terms of mounted archery/melee combat, I still think a full attack option is possible only on a warhorse. On a non-combat trained mount, a successful ride check to control it in battle counts as a move-equivalent action by the book, thus allowing only one ranged (or one melee) attack, correct?

Right - although if you're making your ranged attacks from far enough away, your DM may rule that you're not considered to be 'in battle'.

For melee attacks, it's hard to imagine him ruling that way, though

-Hyp.

 

[kjenks]

Thanks for the info. I'd like to see our group house rule the no ride check for a damaged mount rule, though. I mean, I would think a horse would rear or buck if an arrow plunged into its flank.

The Ride skill description says you must make a Ride check if YOU are damaged:

SRD
===
Stay in Saddle: You can react instantly to try to avoid falling when your mount rears or bolts unexpectedly or when you take damage. This usage does not take an action.
===

It's an easy DC 5, so you don't even need to roll if you have Ride +4 or more.

In terms of mounted archery/melee combat, I still think a full attack option is possible only on a warhorse. On a non-combat trained mount, a successful ride check to control it in battle counts as a move-equivalent action by the book, thus allowing only one ranged (or one melee) attack, correct?

You can take a full-round action on a non-war-trained mount; you just can't control it in battle. This isn't terrible for an archer or spellcaster since an uncontrolled horse will likely move to a safer place or just stand still, and either one is pretty good. A fun and easy way for a DM to figure out what an uncontrolled mount does each round is to roll on the chart in the Confusion spell. That's not a bad approximation of how a skittish, untrained, uncontrolled horse might act in a combat situation.

SRD
===
d% Behavior
01–10 Attack caster with melee or ranged weapons (or close with caster if attack is not possible).
11–20 Act normally.
21–50 Do nothing but babble incoherently.
51–70 Flee away from caster at top possible speed.
71–100 Attack nearest creature (for this purpose, a familiar counts as part of the subject’s self).
===

Change "caster" to "bad thing that scares horsie in combat" and change "familiar" to "rider" so we don't have horses trying to step on their riders. Or let the horse choose the rider as the "nearest creature" on 71-100, striking with hooves and/or bucking and rearing to get the rider off. That's fun, too.

(BTW, it's a move action, not a move-equivalent action. 3.5e dropped the term "move equivalent action.")