Warhorses: Attack on their own?

[Tetsubo]

I agree that the warhorse's master would have to have trained it to "attack" on command. But every player who has ever had a warhorse in a game I've run has done that. They would also train them to be "ground tied" which means they don't needed to be picketed. This gave the party a number of "back-up" troops when the campsite was attacked. They also used war dags a good deal. Battles looked like Dr. Doolittle was present.

 

[kreynolds]

Druids and Paladins only, eh?

What does your standard knight ride then?

Warhorses are "bred for strength and aggression", and trained to fight with a rider mounted. There's nothing particularly special or magical about these animals, they're just bred and trained for a different purpose than your average riding horse.

From the SRD:

"Heavy Warhorse

These animals are similar to heavy horses but are trained and bred for strength and aggression. A heavy warhorse can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds at a Ride check (DC 10).

Carrying Capacity: A light load for a heavy warhorse is up to 300 pounds; a medium load, 301-600 pounds; a heavy load, 601-900 pounds. A heavy warhorse can drag 4,500 pounds."


Historically, "warhorses" were big... On par with Clydesdales. They neede to be to carry all the weight of the knight, his weapons, his armor and the horse's barding while charging across a battlefield.

Most of these horses were throughly trained for combat... To not bolt at loud noises and the smell of blood... To help put its momentum behind the knight's blow... To bite and kick at nearby aggressors... And so on. Though they usually did these at the command of someone riding them, rather than someone standing nearby.

Reread the rules, pal... and your history books.

Oh...I'm sorry...where in the SRD did it say that warhorses will attack without you riding them? I didn't see that in your rip. Maybe you forgot to copy and paste that part? Thought so. Maybe you should move this to the house rules. Just a suggestion, PAL.

 

[Jack Haggerty]

Oh...I'm sorry...where in the SRD did it say that warhorses will attack without you riding them? I didn't see that in your rip. Maybe you forgot to copy and paste that part? Thought so. Maybe you should move this to the house rules. Just a suggestion, PAL.

That's why I suggested spending two months to make a Handle Animal check to train the horse to attack on command without a rider. Anyone with the requisite skill and time (or money to hire someone with the skill and time) can do that, not just paladins and druids.

I too suggested that horses use tactics in line with their intelligence... they should not be purposefully flanking a target to give the rogue a sneak attack.

And I can't move this thread, I'm not a mod... Should I be feel complimented by the implication?

I'll admit that I misread your post... I was originally under the impression that, except for warhorses owned by paladins and druids, you did not let warhorses purposefully attack at the rider's behest, even in battle. I was wrong.

Also, I did not mean the post to sound as insulting as it did... I forgot my . It just bugs me when people make rulings without doing the research, and it happens far too often. No hard feelings, eh?

Anyway, I think we're in agreement that warhorses would not normally attack of their own accord in the absence of a rider. I disagree, however, with the idea that only horses belonging to classes that get animal companions can train them otherwise. And since this character has very obviously not trained his horse to attack on command, he should not yet be allowed to command it so.

In my opinion, the horse in that situation, spurred to duty by the clash of weapons and scent of blood, would lash out at any target that presented itself, whether friend or foe... Except for, perhaps, his owner.

 

[kreynolds]

Anyway, I think we're in agreement that warhorses would not normally attack of their own accord in the absence of a rider. I disagree, however, with the idea that only horses belonging to classes that get animal companions can train them otherwise. And since this character has very obviously not trained his horse to attack on command, he should not yet be allowed to command it so.

Yep. We are definately in agreement! Though that's not what I meant about not being able to train the animal if you weren't of those two classes. I was merely stating that if you were not of those two classes, that you would need to train him, thus make the checks, buy the skill points, take two months, whatever. You don't get that kind of training for free. That would be like a fighter saying, "I'm gonna train my ferret familiar to build hand grenades! Uh huh huh huh...". To which, I, the DM, reply, "Uhm...yeah...what's your AC and how many hit points do you have? Really? Well...that's just not good enough!" Just kidding. I'm not that cruel. Just making a point.

 

[Jack Haggerty]

Yeah, but even then, a Druid or Ranger would have to "train" their animal companions...

The Animal Friendship spells says, "The character can teach the befriended animal three specific tricks or tasks for each point of Intelligence it possesses. Typical tasks are coming when called, rolling over on command, fetching, or shaking hands. They cannot be complex (complex tricks, such as accepting a rider, require the Handle Animal skill)."

I believe that the sidebar on druid animal companions in the PHB states that "attack" is a valid "simple" command. But you still have to take the time to teach it, even though you don't have to make a Handle Animal check... Though a character (like a druid) that begins with an animal comanion could be assumed to already have trained the animal.

 

[kreynolds]

Exactly, Jack. It's much easier for a Druid to train the horse. I don't have a problem letting a non-druid train the horse, it just takes a Handle Animal DC 15 and two months to do it.

On a side note, A paladin with a Dire Lion mount: now that's a different story. A dire lion is a very aggressive animal, and I treat it as such. If the paladin in my game is getting beat up pretty badly, his dire lion mount has no problem jumping into the fray to rip some baddies apart. The lion is not stupid however, and will leave if it doesn't stand a chance. It will just help in any way it can. Lions are much more instinctual and predatory than horses. Anything a lion doesn't like, it kills. Dire lions are amazingly tough too. That's the benefit of waiting until your past 8th level to call a mount.

 

[Artoomis]

Yes, well, a Paladin's mount is a special case anyway. An ordinary animal will not attack unless specially trained, and is not capable of intentially flanking for you (not with an int of 1 or 2, this is!).

An ordinary War Horse is trained to stay put when you dismount - not to attack individually.

 

[kreynolds]

Um...we kinda already covered that Artoomis. Just pokin'.