Mounted Combat and Space/Reach

[StalkingBlue]

There's been a fair bit of mounted combat in my Midnight game recently, after the PCs captured some warhorses. Also unoccupied horses tend to be hanging around in the combat zone when orcs are zooming around and might want to mount one (except as per Midnight rules, horses fear orcs because they smell the predator).

Some questions:


As I understand 3.5 rules, there's no facing and no 'long side' of a horse in 3.5, so the horse occupies four squares on a battle grid. Correct?

Does that mean the rider is assumed to 'expand' so as to also occupy all four squares? In my understanding, consequences would be:
- More opponents can gang up on and melee attack the rider than if he were to dismount.
- If the rider wields a reach weapon, he and his warhorse can attack in the same round only if the rider has Ride-By Attack.
Correct or not?


Further, a potentially more 'creative' rules question:
If a warhorse actively attempts to throw its rider (or someone in the process of mounting it, e.g. because it is terrified of the rider), what rules do I use? Ride checks only? Escape-from-Grapple rules (possibly with a bonus for saddle and bridle and for any Ride skill bonus?)

 

[FireLance]

Some questions:
As I understand 3.5 rules, there's no facing and no 'long side' of a horse in 3.5, so the horse occupies four squares on a battle grid. Correct?

Yes, as a Large creature.

Does that mean the rider is assumed to 'expand' so as to also occupy all four squares? In my understanding, consequences would be:
- More opponents can gang up on and melee attack the rider than if he were to dismount.

Technically, yes. I think of it in this way: your horse isn't staying still in battle. If it was surrounded, it would be turning around in its space to avoid blows. As it does so, it brings you within reach of more opponents.

- If the rider wields a reach weapon, he and his warhorse can attack in the same round only if the rider has Ride-By Attack.
Correct or not?

I see no reason why the rider could not attack a different target from the mount (10 ft away instead of 5 ft away). Also, if the target is also Large or larger, both rider and mount could attack it, even if the rider is using a reach weapon. If the mount is charging, I could see the rider attacking first, then the mount gets its attack when it reaches the opponent. Finally, I'm not sure that the mount can attack the opponent it passes with Ride-By Attack. I might allow the rider to attack the Ride-By opponent while the mount attacks another opponent at the end of its charge.

Further, a potentially more 'creative' rules question:
If a warhorse actively attempts to throw its rider (or someone in the process of mounting it, e.g. because it is terrified of the rider), what rules do I use? Ride checks only? Escape-from-Grapple rules (possibly with a bonus for saddle and bridle and for any Ride skill bonus?)

I would call for an opposed Grapple check, but the rider can opt to use his Ride skill to oppose the check, and a saddle and bridle would give a +2 circumstance bonus.

 

[S'mon]

If the mount is charging, I could see the rider attacking first, then the mount gets its attack when it reaches the opponent.

Sounds reasonable - the only problem is that in 3e mounted combat the mount can always attack, but the rider is supposed to make a Ride check to see if they can attack - which check logically has to come AFTER the horse attacks. That one rule (mount attack first) generates huge logic problems in deciding how to resolve it. I think the designers were so busy getting Back to the Dungeon they didn't pay nearly enough attention to how mounted combat was supposed to work.

 

[StalkingBlue]

Technically, yes. I think of it in this way: your horse isn't staying still in battle. If it was surrounded, it would be turning around in its space to avoid blows. As it does so, it brings you within reach of more opponents.

Good point.

I see no reason why the rider could not attack a different target from the mount (10 ft away instead of 5 ft away).

Er, yup. I should clarify that maybe - I was thinking of both attacking the same target. (Tactically it usually makes more sense to take one target down together rather than spread out your attacks, so I didn't even consider the other option.)

Also, if the target is also Large or larger, both rider and mount could attack it, even if the rider is using a reach weapon.

?
Do you mean the mount attacks a closer space of the Large target and the rider a farther space?
Do the rules support that?

If the mount is charging, I could see the rider attacking first, then the mount gets its attack when it reaches the opponent.

Case for Ride-By Attack, no?

Finally, I'm not sure that the mount can attack the opponent it passes with Ride-By Attack.

Not unless it is an Advanced warhorse with Spring Attack, no. (Not sure you could even Advance a warhorse far enough to gain that feat.)

I might allow the rider to attack the Ride-By opponent while the mount attacks another opponent at the end of its charge.

Yup, that's what I was referring to.

I would call for an opposed Grapple check, but the rider can opt to use his Ride skill to oppose the check, and a saddle and bridle would give a +2 circumstance bonus.

Hm, that would effectively lower the Grapple bonus margin between the Large horse and the Medium rider to +2 (size) for the horse ... I might give circumstance bonuses to a smart horse that remembers to roll, or rub its rider off on a stable wall or somesuch ...

 

[S'mon]

Sounds reasonable - the only problem is that in 3e mounted combat the mount can always attack, but the rider is supposed to make a Ride check to see if they can attack - which check logically has to come AFTER the horse attacks. That one rule (mount attack first) generates huge logic problems in deciding how to resolve it. I think the designers were so busy getting Back to the Dungeon they didn't pay nearly enough attention to how mounted combat was supposed to work.

As SB (my Midnight GM) said, this does sound like a Ride-By Attack, though. In fact looking at the mounted combat rules it seems like Ride-By is essentially a redundant feat, there's no logical reason why a rider's melee attack shouldn't take place _during_ the mount's move (albeit with an AoO as he moves away afterwards). A mounted bowman even gets to _full attack_ during the mount's move!

The rules seem very biased against melee riders;; unless you start quick dismount/remount as free action every round to extend your range - which I found to be highly effective but extremely silly.

 

[StalkingBlue]

Sounds reasonable - the only problem is that in 3e mounted combat the mount can always attack, but the rider is supposed to make a Ride check to see if they can attack - which check logically has to come AFTER the horse attacks. That one rule (mount attack first) generates huge logic problems in deciding how to resolve it. I think the designers were so busy getting Back to the Dungeon they didn't pay nearly enough attention to how mounted combat was supposed to work.

Yup. They must have hated mounted combat. I wonder why they didn't create pocketable versions of normal horses when they poke-horsed the Paladin's Mount.

(Didn't see your post at first - simultaneous posting! )

 

[StalkingBlue]

As SB (my Midnight GM) said, this does sound like a Ride-By Attack, though. In fact looking at the mounted combat rules it seems like Ride-By is essentially a redundant feat, there's no logical reason why a rider's melee attack shouldn't take place _during_ the mount's move (albeit with an AoO as he moves away afterwards).

Hm. Just rereading Feat, it actually refers only to moving after a Charge. I thought it was the mounted version of Spring Attack, but maybe it isn't?
It might just be a very highly specialised move-after-you-charge Feat. Which would make it very weak, but it would make more sense in the context of the rules.

A mounted bowman even gets to _full attack_ during the mount's move!

Of course if you don't count the horse's move as a move-equivalent action for the rider (and apparently the PHB 3.5 doesn't count it as one), then a melee attacker can still full attack from horseback at the end of the horse's turn.

The rules seem very biased against melee riders;; unless you start quick dismount/remount as free action every round to extend your range - which I found to be highly effective but extremely silly.

 

[S'mon]

Hm. Just rereading Feat, it actually refers only to moving after a Charge. I thought it was the mounted version of Spring Attack, but maybe it isn't?
It might just be a very highly specialised move-after-you-charge Feat. Which would make it very weak, but it would make more sense in the context of the rules.

Of course if you don't count the horse's move as a move-equivalent action for the rider (and apparently the PHB 3.5 doesn't count it as one), then a melee attacker can still full attack from horseback at the end of the horse's turn.

3.5 PHB specifically says no, you only get 1 melee attack if attacking after horse moves - but DOESN'T SAY WHY - it's not described as being a standard action or anything like that, it's presented as a complete exception to the regular D&D combat rules. In fact it looks like you could full attack at the start of your turn, then if your horse 'decided' to gallop off, you'd get its move too!

Ride-By Attack could just be interpreted as 'move after charge and still get charge bonus' feat - it is very very weak but it's a prereq for Spirited Charge which is very very powerful!

 

[StalkingBlue]

3.5 PHB specifically says no, you only get 1 melee attack if attacking after horse moves - but DOESN'T SAY WHY - it's not described as being a standard action or anything like that, it's presented as a complete exception to the regular D&D combat rules.

You're right actually, Mounted Combat section on p. 157 states both 'single melee attack' and 'full attack with ranged weapon'. Um ...

In fact it looks like you could full attack at the start of your turn, then if your horse 'decided' to gallop off, you'd get its move too!

Guess not, I'd say the 'single melee attack if horse moves more than 5 feet' would have to apply vice versa by implication. Still, it's less than clear and less than satisfactory IMO.
Although my Sarcosan traitors will be glad to hear they're at an advantage at higher levels. _Would have been_ glad, I mean. If there were any left.

Ride-By Attack could just be interpreted as 'move after charge and still get charge bonus' feat - it is very very weak but it's a prereq for Spirited Charge which is very very powerful!

True.

 

[FireLance]

Do you mean the mount attacks a closer space of the Large target and the rider a farther space?
Do the rules support that?

Well, I couldn't find anything in a quick search of my PH, but I would allow it. In the case of a Large (tall) target it is easy to imagine the rider attacking up, so for simplicity, I would allow him to attack across in the case of a Large (long) target.