Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 6297367" data-attributes="member: 1165">The rider and mount share actions. The rider could "take a move action" but it's better for the mount to do so, usually. I suppose an eladrin could take a move action to teleport off their mount... Or a rider could take a "move action" to dismount.I assumed the mount would take the action. (This could get funny if you have a cunning bard in the party.) Note that the mount doesn't gain the rider's abilities; if the rider is an elf, the mount cannot ignore difficult terrain while shifting. (Unless it's a Valenar elf NPC that specifically allows this.)Yes.The damage of an equal-level brute mount is actually kind of ridiculous. I also think a warlord using a lazy power on a horse is ludicrous, but by RAW, I don't see anything preventing it.Unlike in 3e, I don't see any rules for "animal handling". I would let the PC make that decision. Of course, if the mount is particularly passive, then no. (A particularly passive mount should really be a minion.)Even a passive horse gives a bonus to damage when charging. I don't think having the horse attacks makes sense (although considering how much damage a horse might do compared to a low-Strength rider, it might make sense mechanically).The latter.I use companion-like rules for horses, rather than the official monster rules. The horse would level-up with the PC and have healing surges. Of course, a level 30 horse is still kind of a joke.I also add "Shared Actions" as a trait so the player can read the rules right away, instead of having to go digging. For "passive" mounts I also give them the "Clumsy Attacker" trait so they have no opportunity attacks. (I think having your horse make opportunity attacks for you is silly.)The horse can move instead. This is specifically called out in the Rules Compendium, IIRC. There's even rules for if the mount or rider is subjected to forced movement.For obvious reasons, DMs are generally reluctant to let one feat make a character very powerful. If horses did less damage, DMs could relax. I don't want the horse's attack to do more damage than the fighter's, but in the rules (if they're the same level) that is precisely the case. I do want the mount to not die though.You can have the mount kick or trample (by giving up your standard action). I think the former should be discouraged, and the latter is perfectly fine. (Mounted Combat is basically giving you a free encounter power called "Trample".)Technically yes.Which movement modes are you talking about here? The horse can still run or (technically) crawl while someone is riding it. But it can't teleport, burrow, or fly, even if the rider can. Which yes means the horse might often be dead weight. (Worse, imagine having to pay extra to perform the Water Breathing ritual on the horse. But I think someone could perform Water Walking on it fine. Just don't fall off!)The rules have lots of unclarities or unintended effects. I'm not sure if a warlord should be able to boost their mount or someone else's mount. There should be a feat for that.I think the mount should gain levels with the riders. A level 30 fighter doesn't want a level 1 horse. You want one that will survive the same kinds of things you can. Note that a horse is always far less flexible than the rider. It might have trouble charging up a set of stairs, much less exploring an underwater cavern, even with magic.I don't think the mount should be making attacks for the riders. Not unless it's a carnivorous mount, and even then, it's damage should be similar to PC damage. (The companion horses I've built are still based on the Monster Vault horse, and monsters do more damage with their at-will attacks than PCs, usually. Worse if the rider isn't a striker.) But by RAW this isn't just possible, but a good idea!</blockquote>

Verification