Question: Attacking Mounted vs. On Foot

[Water Bob]

In RL, I understand that a mounted warrior has a great advantage to the warrior on foot, barring ranged weapons. The game mechanics don't really prove that to be true, do they?

In a scenario I ran by myself, just testing out the rules, the mounted warrior lost his horse pretty quickly.

In fact, the game seems to turn the advantage to the character on foot. Think about it: if the mounted warrior attacks and keeps on riding, that provokes an Attack of Opportunity (possibly more than one) by the warrior on foot as the mounted warrior leaves his target's threatened area. If the mounted warrior stops next to the target-on-foot, then what real advantage does he have?

Sure, he gets a +1 attack for the height advantage. And, it's an advantage that the horse will most likely take damage and get killed first, buffering the rider. But, losing your horse like that--is that a real advantage.

I understand that, if a mounted rider charges using a lance that, if he hits, he does automatic double damage. But, what about the mounted rider with the scimitar?

Plus, the rider must make Ride checks as needed.

So, don't you think that the existing 3.5 mounted combat rules are a little off in reflecting reality? Should foot-borne warriors fear the cavalry coming at them to attack?

 

[Water Bob]

Answering my own question: I think the Ride By Attack Feat is the answer. It makes sense that a person would need to be trained. Otherwise, he'll just get his mount, and probably himself, killed. He'd be better off attacking on foot.

I wonder if an Improved Ride By Attack feat would be in order: I'm thinking of a feat that, if you charge by a target as you would with Ride By Attack, that your target gets a chance to hit you only if your attack is unsuccessful. That would be more along the lines of what I think of when I think of cavalry vs. foot soldiers, and at a cost of two Feats, it deprives the character from specializing in other areas.

Just a thought.

 

[nijineko]

i recall various ninja weapons which were specifically designed to deal with horses and the armored samurai riding them.

 

[Sunseeker]

Mounted combat has never been simulated well, but it is also fair to say that mounted combat is a mixed bag. The horse is a health buffer, but also a burden, as when it dies you usually are knocked down, a dangerous situation for an armored rider. Secondly, against pikes and "reach" weapons, the mounted rider is at a serious disadvantage. What makes this worse in game is that these many weaknesses are easily simulated, but the few strengths are not. As you are aware it requires a pretty steep buy-in for the mounted combatant to gain any useful advantage, while all a fighter on foot needs is a pike.

Clasically the calvary were "shock and awe" troops, they were not favorable in large numbers. While they did not go unused, the simple costs of maintaining a horse in addition to a soldier relegated them to limited numbers. Traditionally mounted warriors made only quick passing attacks that did little real damage and served to disorganize enemy troops. Most mounted warriors used horses for travel purposes, as the animal was far too valuable to risk too often in combat. Visual depictions of mounted riders historically are really just to make people of importance stand out.

Mounted combat IMO really demands more a whole class dedicated to riding and attacking while doing so, and simulating historical "reality" should not be its goal, since that for the majority if situations, mounted combat wad highly unfavorable.

 

[billd91]

The value of cavalry, aside from the massed lance charge that was shown to have problems that the French knights never really seemed to cotton on to, is mobility. They harry flanks, they run down routing infantry, they exploit gaps that may appear anywhere in the line. It's usually the presence of cavalry or lack thereof that determines whether a beaten army retreats to fight another day or is destroyed as a cohesive unit.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

When the Visigoth "barbarians"* defeated the Romans at Adrianople, most of their troops were mounted in contrast to the disciplined heavy Roman infantry. The Visigoths weren't heavily armored, I think they didn't even have chain mail. They kicked the Romans' butts. Their superior mobility let them flank the Romans, who, being on foot and in heavy armor, couldn't react fast enough. Neither side were using a whole lot of archery or ballistae (I'm a bit surprised the Romans didn't, but I think they had to move fast and left the heavy artillery behind).

In a battle in Japan, whose name I really wish I could remember, the warrior monks (they were not D&D-style monks, but were more like non-magical paladins, wearing heavy armor and using polearms and spears) were defeated by samurai cavalry who were able to outpace them and tire out the heavily-armored foot guys.

Similar things when the Spaniards first faced the natives in South America. (When you're wearing a steel breastplate and helmet, and got an iron mace, while riding a horse, you have an advantage against the guy without armor and possibly weapons, not even a cap to protect his head.)

There's loads of advantages in real-life, but in a game whose earliest days (beyond the mass combat, anyway) involved going into dungeons that were too small and cramped for horses, those rules just didn't develop. There's also balance issues. Things like guns and cavalry advantage aren't balanced in real life, but you don't want to create a game where everyone should use guns (probably of a certain type) and should be mounted and should wear the heaviest armor (well, you could, but that's not a balanced game).

TSR and WotC have traditionally done a poor job of balancing cavalry. The horses are usually quite weak, and don't advance with the heroes. If they do ([notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] did a pretty good job of this), they don't just increase mobility and damage, but become powerful attackers in their own right. This might be realistic, but it's not balanced. It also adds a lot more dice rolls to the equation, and still messes with tactics. (Instead of trying to charge or use Ride-by Attack, you want to stand still and trade full-round attacks with the enemy... with the horse getting three high-Strength attacks, possibly powered up with magic horseshoes. Getting three extra attacks is kind of a big deal at 1st-level.)

I would personally like horses like mounts to act like buffs. While riding this horse, you do extra damage with charge attacks and move faster... and that's about it. Give scaling hit points, match everything else, eg defenses/AC/saves to the rider, so that attacks against the horse or both horse and rider make a difference.

*They hadn't been barbaric for centuries at least, and they were rebelling due to a lack of respect being shown to them.

 

[Greenfield]

The horse is faster than the man. The man on foot, however, can move "sideways" relative to the horse, a maneuverability advantage that has nothing to do with foot speed.

Few D&D characters I've seen ever bother to buy any kind of barding for their horse. Of course the horse is going to die.

A big change in the use of the horse in battle was the addition of the stirrup. Without the stirrup, riders would use the horse to reach the battlefield, then dismount. Attempting to ride in combat wasn't practical, you just weren't stable enough in the saddle.

Cavalry were like the "Dex/Mobility fighter" of the battlefield. They were quick and mobile compared to infantry, and sometimes that won the day. If the battle called for more staying power though, the infantry would dominate.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Few D&D characters I've seen ever bother to buy any kind of barding for their horse. Of course the horse is going to die.

If you buy barding, or even if you have the horse level up, it rarely has the kind of saving throws and hit points a PC might have. (In the Kingmaker campaign I'm in, people buy barding, but won't spend magic items on mounts. After all, we're on a budget.)

 

[Greenfield]

Well, the trained warhorse costs how much, compared to the barding and magic?

Address that and you'll see them take better care of their horses.

 

[Starfox]

All the comments about horse being light troops are true - for light horse. Heavy horse were the tanks of their day, the armored column you used to punch through a front line. Not all eras had effective heavy horse troops - depending mostly on how the infantry were trained to fight them. It is a rock-paper-scissors kind of thing - if infantry become good at fighting heavy horse (using pikes) , you attack them with missiles. If infantry become good at fighting missile troops (large shields in formation) you use light horse/skirmishers. If infantry focus on fighting skirmishers (becoming lighter and more mobile) you charge them with heavy horse. Historical warfare went trough several revolutions like this.

In 3e AND [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate], to be an efficient heavy horseman, you need 3-4 dedicated feats - meaning you have to be a level human fighter. If the world allows for units of level 3 fighters, they are quite powerful even without horses. This applies to several kinds of historical troops, such as archers and peltasts too. If the game world allows for units of level 3 fighters, unit specialization can go a long way.