Mounted Combat Tricks

[LokiDR]

Sure, my feats don't come into play most of the time. They don't have to. My character is still perfectly capable of swinging a sword the rest of the time, casting low level clerical spells to take a load off the party cleric, and has some useful Ranger skills like Search, Listen and Spot, although limited to 4 ranks.
I use a Falchion in unmounted combat, as it's my God's favoured weapon, and Power Attack helps there quite a bit.

If you did not have the multiclassing combination you do, would you think your character would be as effective? It just strikes me as odd that off your horse, you lose almost half of your abilites.

In short, as I tell everyone before I start play with new people, my character off his horse is a fair fighter and a backup Cleric. On his horse, he rules the battlefield. It's a fair trade. The mounted feats, to compensate for not always being applicable, are very powerful when they do apply. I understand that playing a character like this doesn't appeal to most people, and frankly that's a lot of why I do it: to be different. I have proved many times that it can be very effective.

Not appealing to everyone aside, do you think the character is viable in any sort of campaign where you might be in a dungeon for a long (a few sessions) period of time? It is a matter of campaign, but I think the living campaigns expect more variety in play style than a home campaign and the living games are less linked to each other.

Secondly, telling me that I am powergaming (...powergaming and min-maxing is encouraged) and that I am ineffective (...less than half the combats is bad trade) seems both inflammatory and contradictory. Maybe we can just agree that I like the character and think it's an interesting tradeoff, and that you don't. There's room for all kinds.
Note, the most effective mounted fighter is undoubtedly the Paladin. Summonable mounts is a wonderful thing.

I said the living games encourage min-maxing and that you have made a tradeoff I would not. This is much different than saying you are powergaming but your character sucks.

The living games are a different case in the matter of a campaign as you will rarely see a single large dungeon because of the limited time for each session. A home campaign doesn't have that problem. Would you accept multiple sessions away from your horse then 1 or two where you are always mounted? This probably not happen in living games (unless you get some very unfortunate picks for modules) but I would say is common in many, if not most, home games. Could you accept being a backup character for multiple sessions rather than just a more than half of a single module?

I'm not against LG, or any of the other living games, but I think they have a style all their own which differs from a lot of home games. I'll accept that mounted combat would be a good choice for living games, what about the rest of the games?

 

[Seule]

First, my last post was a little confrontational, and I'm sorry.

If you did not have the multiclassing combination you do, would you think your character would be as effective? It just strikes me as odd that off your horse, you lose almost half of your abilites.

Actually, in retrospect I probably should have made him a Paladin. He'd have a bonded mount that he could summon, and his outlook wouldn't be too much different (currently he's LN). He'd also keep more abilities, like smiting and a few spells. Currently I still have a fair number of hit points, good BAB, and a couple of feats off a horse, as well as spellcasting. I'm far from useless without a horse, and indeed I can fight fromt lines or buff and heal, depending on the party composition I'm in. The usual party I adventure with consists of a Paladin (not mounted speciality), a Fighter (melee), a Wizard (evoker), a Rogue (heavily multiclassed, a bit of everything really), and a Cleric (buffs, noncombat). We make a good team as I can fill in for most of them in a pinch, and still have my occasional moment to shine. I've been in parties where I was the only fighter, and although I didn't like it, I can still hold my own, with my own buffing spells.
As a note, the Ranger level is simply to enable me to qualify gfor the Windrider PrC from Masters of the Wild, which I'll have next level. I don't track worth a darn.

Not appealing to everyone aside, do you think the character is viable in any sort of campaign where you might be in a dungeon for a long (a few sessions) period of time? It is a matter of campaign, but I think the living campaigns expect more variety in play style than a home campaign and the living games are less linked to each other.

Actually, I think the character would be quite viable in a homegame, as long as your DM is willing to take your abilities into account. I know that when I run a campaign, I look at what the characters are good at, and make sure to give them a chance to do it. Not all the time, mind you, but my character isn't so overspecialized that he's useless off a horse, he's still as good a fighter as your average Ranger, once you count the spells he uses for buffing.

The living games are a different case in the matter of a campaign as you will rarely see a single large dungeon because of the limited time for each session. A home campaign doesn't have that problem. Would you accept multiple sessions away from your horse then 1 or two where you are always mounted? This probably not happen in living games (unless you get some very unfortunate picks for modules) but I would say is common in many, if not most, home games. Could you accept being a backup character for multiple sessions rather than just a more than half of a single module?

In Living Greyhawk, I find that I can use a horse in somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 of modules, and in those, in perhaps 1/2 of the encounters. However, although that's 1/4 of encounters or a little less, including sometimes where I can't be mounted for a number of modules in a row, it doesn't really bother me as I know my turn will come, and so do the people I play with. It's more fun for me to be mounted, but I'm aware that it wouldn't be fun for the others if I always was, as I'd dominate.

I'm not against LG, or any of the other living games, but I think they have a style all their own which differs from a lot of home games. I'll accept that mounted combat would be a good choice for living games, what about the rest of the games?

If I wasn't playing a mounted character in LG, I'd have tried it in a home game by now. As it is, I'm tempted to try it with a Small Paladin, and see how it goes. Small characters obviously have the advantage that riding dogs can go almost anywhere.
A mounted character is not a usual character style, and not for everyone as you have to be aware that there will be long stretches where you'll play backup, but I find it rewarding enough. You have to look at the team picture, it wouldn't work as well if you have a spirit of competition among the group, you might be seen as not pulling your weight, if there's a string of games where you are inside/underground.
Actually, I'm kind of happy that not many character choose the role, it makes my character more distinctive.

--Seule, player of Mardal Al'Mullah of Ket