Vehicles, Steeds, and Bears -oh my! (fragile vehicles and powerful PCs mix poorly)

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Surely the problem with that is that a knight on a warhorse is a vastly more effective combatant than the same knight without the horse?

In 3rd, yes (Spirited Charge!), but not in 4th. In 4th you get a minor boost to damage when charging on horseback (when you can't use anything but a melee basic attack, generally*) and a massive boost in speed. Toss in a corner case about sort of but not really occupying a larger space, which is just as likely to help as hurt you. That's about it. If there was a 4e-based "cavalier" class (not talking the paladin here) you probably wouldn't be more powerful. You'd give up some other class options in return for hitting hard with charge and trample attacks.

The action sharing means that if someone runs by you you don't get two opportunity attacks and other weird issues. It does mean you can have the horse trample someone (by giving up your own attack), which is still kind of nice.

Making the horse into a scaling companion (so, gaining levels - hit points and defenses - along with the rider, and also healing surges) would help mitigate the fragile mount problem, while the action sharing fixes the action economy problem.

*I'm sure there's some feat or power that makes this a far better option than I'm picturing, though, just not likely in the core rules.

In 3rd the Wild Cohort feat almost fits the bill. It gives your horse more AC, hit points, and better saves... but it's actually meant to be an animal companion, and not a "buff item" that you ride. (So it can flank, make extra attacks that are constantly increasing in power, and what have you.)

I ran into an issue like that in Warhammer RPG once. The only times I played WHRPG 2e, I rolled up a character with a horse. The first lost his horse so fast... the second made the mistake of going shopping by himself (with his horse, and this was Venice-equivalent, so no horseback charging) and got attacked by three guys. I really didn't want to use the horse as an extra combatant, but it was either that or be killed... the other players were "thrilled" to watch a fight involving only one PC. I know you're not supposed to split the party, but why would a trio of thugs attack an armed nobleman who is simply going shopping in a nice area of town is beyond me.

The DM was reluctant to give me a horse due to the perceived power increase (having effectively two PCs) and I told him I only wanted the movement boost, and in the first session ending up having to go back on that. :/

 

[RangerWickett]

It doesn't cover mounts, but I think we had some decent vehicle vs. vehicle rules in here.

The trick, in our case, is generally divorcing the ship damage scale from the PC damage scale.

As for mounts, in 3.5 I had a mounted archer ranger/beastmaster, so my horse was a better melee combatant than I was. My turns would go, "Horse does hoof hoof hoof, five foot steps out of melee range, I go arrow arrow arrow. Next round I go arrow arrow arrow, and the horse five foot steps back into melee and goes hoof hoof hoof."

The rest of the party had mundane horses, and they'd make a point to dismount. Especially when we fought dragons. Oddly, my horse had improved evasion, even though I didn't. So the dragon would strafe, and my horse would somehow . . . use me as cover? *shrug*

 

[delericho]

In 3rd, yes (Spirited Charge!), but not in 4th...

Sorry, you misunderstood me - I don't mean in D&D. In real life, a knight mounted on his warhorse was massively more effective than the same knight without the horse.

 

[pemerton]

Surely the problem with that is that a knight on a warhorse is a vastly more effective combatant than the same knight without the horse?

I don't mean in D&D. In real life, a knight mounted on his warhorse was massively more effective than the same knight without the horse.

I think this is one of those things where it can make the game run more smoothly to compress the effectiveness difference a bit, as far as action resolution is concerned.

In 4e, at least, I think a good measure would be that losing your horse is -2 to hit and step down damage die by one size. Ideally, being disarmed should work about the same way. So in either case it's a noticeable debuff, but not utterly devastating.

 

[delericho]

I think this is one of those things where it can make the game run more smoothly to compress the effectiveness difference a bit, as far as action resolution is concerned.

In 4e, at least, I think a good measure would be that losing your horse is -2 to hit and step down damage die by one size. Ideally, being disarmed should work about the same way. So in either case it's a noticeable debuff, but not utterly devastating.

Yep, I can agree with that, on all counts. Especially the bit about disarm is insightful.

(Sadly, can't XP you again, hence this post.)

 

[Razjah]

Yep, I can agree with that, on all counts. Especially the bit about disarm is insightful.

(Sadly, can't XP you again, hence this post.)

Covered! I thought the idea was good.

As for ships and castles and things like that, in D&D I prefer E6 which really helps keep things like ships important. Something else I have done in a higher level Eberron game was to explain how insanely expensive a flying ship was and how much a naval vessel with a bound elemental cost. The PCs got their hands a small flying ship, and basically used it like a helicopter to rappel down and prey on naval ships. We avoided the ship to ship combat.

I have had other games where the cannon fire was reflex saves for the PCs while they opened up some damage to clear the enemy ship's deck on mooks then had the ships bind together to allow for "regular" combat. It wasn't the best solution but it worked and kept the ships important.

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] had some great ideas about making the ships essentially a level equivalent creature to deal with the damage.

 

[sabrinathecat]

2nd ed had SpellJammer for ship to ship combat, and I'm sure there are numerous updates to that system.
As for taking out mounts, yeah. Several of the polearms are specifically designed to cut the horse's front legs off, so that the mounted warrior is suddenly tied to an immobile screaming beast until it can dismount and disentangle itself. The idea is to disable and make the rider vulnerable.
On the other hand, give the charriots barding. Instead of just AC, give it a hardness rating. Anything less than... 10 hp does nothing. Also, immune to necrotic, poison, psychic, shadow, and other strange power sources that should not affect inanimate objects. In other words, make them constructs.

 

[Grogg of the North]

What are some solutions you've used (if you've had the problem)?

Mounted combat runs into the problem that, in 3.5, unless you invest heavily into your mount the odds of it getting shot out from under you increase dramatically as you gain levels. I've been in games were there was a gentleman's agreement that the DM would not go out of his way to target a mount but if you got caught in a fireball it was fair game. I think it really depends on your group and how each player would react to having a huge investment of their character die. Though mounts dying is a staple of that type of warfare. Just look at Return of the King!

For ship of the line combat, I'd point out to your players that boats represent a significant investment of time and resources. So capturing a boat is much more rewarding than sinking her. Also, if you sink her all of the cargo/booty is now at the bottom of the sea. You can go get it if you really want to, but whose to say that merfolk/sahuagin/something else hasn't already taken the choice bits? Besides, who wouldn't want their own fleet of ships, wear a fancy hat, and be called Commodore?

 

[Razjah]

Also, if you sink her all of the cargo/booty is now at the bottom of the sea. You can go get it if you really want to, but whose to say that merfolk/sahuagin/something else hasn't already taken the choice bits? Besides, who wouldn't want their own fleet of ships, wear a fancy hat, and be called Commodore?

I think this is really the best way to handle the situation.