Rediscovery of the World - 4e (OOC)

Look, I understand where this comes from. If you read the rules for mounting on the dmg, it says that rider and mount share a normal set of actions: one standard, one move, one minor. However, these are the rules for mounted PCs.
I considered the hobgoblin and the horse two separate monster, each with his own set of actions, that act combined on the same turn: a whole different thing.
As for the action i count:
ONE move action to prevent the horse being knocked down. the way I see it, if the horse is not knocked down, why should the rider spend an action to avoid falling? He avoided the threat. He's on saddle. If the horse had fallen, or if an effect had targeted the rider himself, then he would have been knocked off the saddle.
The horse uses its own actions to move.
The hobgoblin attacks.
The hobgoblin drinks a potion.

Now HERE I admit a mistake. The PH lists "consuming a potion" as a minor action. Does this include picking the potion? Probably not. So probably the Hobgoblin should have used two minors (retrieving an item is a minor action, not a move). I'm sorry.
I may be badly mistaken, but it seems to me this is the only obvious mistake.
Am I writing nonsense?

Also, I don't understand why you say that there's "no ride-by attack unless specified in the mount's data". As I said, I used two monsters in the MM as a BaSE, then modified them. As for them sharing their whole sets of action in the same turn, well... the mechanics for mounted combats you cite are made to limit the pcs' power. Monsters don't need that. They just need to give more xp for new abilities. I think one-and-a-half the sum of the two base monsters' xp is more or less appropriate. Think of it as an elite.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad



I did a bit of conversing last night with some people and I have come to a conclusion. It is not your ruling that I disagree with. It seems that 4e has made a fundamental shift in the mechanics that effect combat. No longer are all parties governed by the same set of rules. NPC's are governed by combat rules that are far superior to PC's however, the scope of their combat abilities are quite limited in comparison to the vast array of abilities any PC can bring to bear each encounter. As we can see in the above discussion a mounted PC is limited to 3 actions that he has to divide between himself and his mount and he must have a Feat to access some of the combat abilities. While an NPC needs no extra abilities to ride and use a mount to full effect, in addition they are allowed to 3 actions for themselves and 3 for the mount. Effectively the mount counts as a new enemy.

This is a problem with the system. I don't believe that combat should have varying rules due to what side of the table you are on. It makes me very unhappy that D&D has chosen this route. They have truly changed the whole game and I don't like it at all. I am sorry I tied up so much time with this. This makes me much more excited about Paizo's system coming out soon. I will definitely be using it in my own games rather than 4e.
We can continue.
 

I have to disagree. From the beginning the two sides have been under the auspices of different rule sets. PCs have long been graced with better stats than NPCs, and have had significantly more wealth. Keeping enemies a real challenge to PCs in 3.x required loading them up with magical items, which the PCs could then plunder. The new system, as much as it might seem to favor NPCs, is there to keep the game more intense, so I'm willing to see how it goes. That's just my take on it, and the reason that I think I'll enjoy DMing 4E much more than I did 3.x.
 

I never had a problem with balance in a 3.x game. The rules for combat and character creation (PC or NPC) were straight forward and had great synergy. I never had to resort to 'monty hall' magic item loading on npc's to reflect a challenge. Often I was noted by my players as the stingiest DM in existence. I am kind of saddened to see that D&D made such a drastic change in philosophy.
 

I don't dislike these changes. 3.5 was deeply flawed. Paizo's fix is interesting but not nearly sufficient.
However, thisi is not the point. I think the question to ask is: "is it exciting, in a fight were the pcs are not unfairly owned (or at a disadvantage at all) challenge them with a monster difficult to handle with?" I think the answer is yes. Then, if you think the monster is NOT "interesting", that is another matter.
 

Vacation!

I'm going camping for a few days and will be internetless. Assume Oak Twin Strike's anything that moves until I get back ;) , uses the Dire Wolverine Strike encounter exploit if adjacent to multiple enemies, and uses its skills in any way beneficial to the party until I return.

I'll be back home Saturday, but I might not get a chance to log back in until Sunday.
 



Remove ads

Top