Using 2-Handed Melee Weapons While Mounted(?)

[xenoflare]

chinese warriors

hi guys,

i'm not really that experienced with "real world physics" of mounted combat - but since DnD is a fantasy game, just gimme some leeway for my ignorance haha.

Accounts of warfare in Chinese historical literature and mythology are replete with warriors bearing pole-arms and spears from horseback, engaging in grand duels lasting long series of bouts with one another. In the Romance of 3 Kingdoms, the famous general of Shu, Guan Yu, earned his fame for battle prowess with the "Da Dao", or "Great Blade" both mounted and on foot - it's basically a naginata-like polearm. (Now people call Guan Yu "Guan Gong" because he has been elevated to the status of a God of War and Loyalty in Chinese religion, and they refer to the "Da Dao" as the "Guan Dao", or "Guan's Blade".)

There're lots of other polearms that i can remember from my childhood tales - tiger-fanged war maces which were basically spiked clubbing polearms, snake-tooth spears, which were long, wavy, kris-like twin-bladed spears, etc, which mounted Chinese warriors used with great gusto. To get a bit of an idea about this, just take a look-see at the Playstation 2 game series "Dynasty Warriors", which is a rendition of these tales in video-game format.

This may, or may not be true - the embellishment of history over time with myth and folklore, as well as artistic license with the various ages, but what i'm trying to point out is that it's pretty dang cool, and it's got a "tradition" of sorts, within at least one culture's imagination. It may not be "realistic", but hey, this is a game after all, and if my half-orc psychic warrior mounted on his snow tiger can't fight 50 bouts with an orcish double-bladed war-axe with his pseudonatural vampiric blackguard advesary mounted on a fiendish dire wolf, then that'll be an awful shame haha.

hope this helped - just my 2 taels of silver.

yours sincerely,
shao

 

[Amal Shukup]

Another thing for y'all to consider...

A horse is NOT a chair. You are NOT sitting on a dumb static animal - NOR are you perched upon some kind of wildly unstable combat platform that is hindering your every action.

Rather, you are firmly seated (particularly with a high-cantled military saddle) on a very strong, very heavy, very stable, partially intelligent collaborative extension of your body (I do think DC 5 is a bit low to represent the level of skill actually involved in fighting from horseback though...). So when you compare fighting on foot to fighting in horseback, remember that the mounted fighter has four exceedingly powerful, slightly less nimble legs to work with rather than the usual two. Also a LOT of extra height and weight.

Seated on a horse wielding a greatsword. Rider wants to attack the poor gentleman on his left side. No worries. Raise the sword point down (a very common position for a greatsword actually), the horse shifts position, bringing the victim in range of the weapon (just like you'd do with your legs). Maybe even rears slighly and drops in time with the thrust - giving it some extra authority. 'Chop'.

Wanna attack the guy who just stepped up behind you? Horse wheels around - all 1000+ pounds of him. Rider chokes up on the sword and swings... 'Chop'. Next!

This is all really well represented by the lack of facing in 3.5. While fighting on foot, you can turn, pivot, wheel, charge, sidestep, advance, retreat, jump, crouch, etc. All of that can be done with a horse as well.

"Oh, you just approach the horse on the shield side and hamstring the beast - that'll bring the Knight down. Easy pickings..."

Yeah? Try it... Rear. Pivot. Chop. Next peasant please...

Amal.

 

[Camarath]

(I do think DC 5 is a bit low to represent the level of skill actually involved in fighting from horseback though...).

DC 5 is to guide your mount with your knees allowing both your hands to be free (free action at the start of your turn). To control a mount in combat (as a move action) is a DC 20 check (if you fail you can not nothing else in that round) unless the mount is trained for combat in which case you do not need to roll (but I think you still need to spend the move action).

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I hear you Azlan, it does just seem to go against type and reason, probably not game balance.

We had a knight who routinely used his greatsword on horseback and that always broke my story immersion, so to me it is a problem.

I think the -4 non-proficiency is the best mechanic to deal with this because the lance and bow set the precedent for using a two handed weapon on horseback. The lance has the special one hand rule and the bow is at penalties for movement.

Easy DC5 ride checks mock both weapons specialness as an above dex fighter could automatically make that at level 1, i.e. it never has to be rolled.

I prefer some semblence to medieval history with weapons being used in their historical manner, i.e. greatswords amongst heavy foot. As the rules stand now, you could easily field a 1000 veteran cavalry (i.e. level 2) armed with glaives. That strikes me as rules rape.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Actually I am thinking that a -4 penalty to attack may not be the answer here because what is it that we want to do? We want to discourage the common usage of an uncommon fighting style, not stop it completely.

The problem is that DC5 is too easy and any DC will at some point become an auto-success. I want there to be a penalty for all levels (like arcane spell failure) and I think the best way is to apply a negative modifier to the ride skill. This hurts the mounted combat feat, riding exotic mounts, contested checks and up to the higher mid levels, the various ride skill options.

A -2 is a place to start as per the DMG guidelines but skills are pretty easy to boost compared to raw combat stats. I think a -4 to ride is more in line.

Always Remember to Buy the Players with a Sweetener!
i.e.

Mounted focus
Prerequisite: Mounted combat, ride skill 1+ rank.
Special: You are especially skilled in mounted close quarter combat. Any melee weapon used while mounted receives a +1 to damage so long as you qualify for the +1 bonus for fighting from higher ground. Additionally you may ignore the ride skill penalty for fighting with a two handed melee weapon.
Normal: Two handed melee weapons used while mounted incur a -4 to the ride skill.

 

[shilsen]

DC 5 is to guide your mount with your knees allowing both your hands to be free (free action at the start of your turn). To control a mount in combat (as a move action) is a DC 20 check (if you fail you can not nothing else in that round) unless the mount is trained for combat in which case you do not need to roll (but I think you still need to spend the move action).

You do not need to spend the move action if the mount is trained for combat. If you had to, then you would never be able to get full attacks in mounted combat, since you would always be spending a move action.

 

[CCamfield]

Excellent point, Xenoflare! You reminded me of pictures/films of samurai I've seen using long spears on horseback (which, on doing a search, were called yari).

I suppose polearms, even with a large blade on them, probably were easier to use on horseback than a two-handed sword. Still, if you allow one, it's probably simpler to allow them all.

 

[Camarath]

You do not need to spend the move action if the mount is trained for combat. If you had to, then you would never be able to get full attacks in mounted combat, since you would always be spending a move action.

The skill entry reads as follows

Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for warhorses or warponies.

It says that you do not need to roll for war trained mounts. To me that sounds like automatic success on the Control Mount in Battle move action. I do not think the the elimination of the of the need for the roll eliminates the need for the action.

This would mean that you would not be able to get a Full Attack if you Controled your mount in the same round. I assume if you did not Control your mount it would act on its own volition. This might not be such a bad thing if you have a war trained mount and have it preform the a trick such as Attack.

 

[Darklone]

Actually I am thinking that a -4 penalty to attack may not be the answer here because what is it that we want to do? We want to discourage the common usage of an uncommon fighting style, not stop it completely....
Normal: Two handed melee weapons used while mounted incur a -4 to the ride skill.

It was not uncommon. The rules don´t say anything about penalties for two handed melee weapons while mounted.

But: Feel free to houserule this aberration of a knight movie with twohanders who weighed 15 kg.

 

[Felix]

[EDIT] I was sounding like a jerk. Let me try again.

Camarath: while I cannot argue with your use of semantics to support your point, because they are sound, I will argue against your point on the grounds that this defeats the purpose of Mounted Combat.

If forced to take a move action every round to Control a Mount in Battle, a mounted character could never:
-Move further than the speed of the mount.
-Attack and move in the same round.
-Charge, as charge is a full round action.
-Run, as running is a full round action.
-Maneuver around the battlefield better than a footsoldier with a move of 30'. (because he can take a double move for 60')

By forcing any character who uses both hands to do something while mounted to spend a MEA to Control the Mount in Battle renders mounts useless.

Put it this way:
You propose that any character who uses both hands for something else needs must make a CtMiB check, even if he auto succeeds.

Mounted Archery requires the use of both hands.

The rules state that a mounted archer may make a full attack, albeit at a penalty, even while double moving.

Therefore, the full-attacking, double-move mount controlling, mounted archer does not have to spend a MEA to control the mount in battle. So even though your interpretation of

You do not need to roll for warhorses or warponies.

is semantically possible, other rules show it to be incorrect.