PDA

View Full Version : [3e] Mounted combat

Dunkelhand
2009-01-06, 12:20 PM
In the PHB it's stated that the mounted character is assumed to fill the space of it's mount. Does this mean he can choose which field he is in regard of attacking? Can he attack every opponent that would be in reach from any of the fields occupied by his mount? What about the attackers? Can more of them attack the player character as well?

How do I handle the distance from the mount's back to the attackers if the mount's shoulder height is actually higher than his reach?

And finally: if the mount has attacks of his own, are these in addition or instead of the players attacks? Does this change if it's a paladin's special mount?

I am prety confuse right now, help would be really appreciated :)

hamishspence
2009-01-06, 12:24 PM
mount always has own initiative and attacks, so its In Addition To. Except in 4th ed.

Going by Sage advice, i'd say treat as 2d square- everything in range of square- and you can resolve them from any square of mount's space.

Or possibly 3d cube- attack from any space in cube.

If there is a significant disparity in size- don't worry- the game assumes monster is moving in its space- which is why it can attack all directions. So, medium character on Gargantuan dragon- when he attacks, dragon happens to have shifted position so PC is closest to the side he's attacking from.

RebelRogue
2009-01-06, 12:25 PM
Essentially, the mounted character acts as if he/she occupies the same space/size as the mount, but keeps his/her original reach. Or that how I understand it, at least.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-06, 01:21 PM
Does this mean he can choose which field he is in regard of attacking?

Not as such; he's in all squares the mount occupies. (That's 4 squares for a Large mount in 3.5)

Can he attack every opponent that would be in reach from any of the fields occupied by his mount?

Yes. With a weapon without reach, the rider threatens all 12 squares adjacent to the mount.

What about the attackers? Can more of them attack the player character as well?

Yes. Anyone threatening any of the 4 squares occupied by both mount and rider can attack either mount or rider.

How do I handle the distance from the mount's back to the attackers if the mount's shoulder height is actually higher than his reach?

There's no such thing. The attacker can attack perfectly normally regardless of the mount's height.

However, if someone is mounted on, say, an elephant, you can just forbid them from using melee weapons (except, perhaps, attacking anyone adjacent to the elephant with reach weapons). It's not covered in the rules, though. This would be houseruling.

And finally: if the mount has attacks of his own, are these in addition or instead of the players attacks? Does this change if it's a paladin's special mount?

Mounts can attack normally, if they have a standard or full-round action to use to do so.

Dunkelhand
2009-01-06, 05:05 PM
Thanks a lot! Guess all problems are solved now :)

Mounts can attack normally, if they have a standard or full-round action to use to do so.
I guess that means the mount moves on the player's initiative but attacks on it's own? Hm... does this mean if the mount has higher initiative than the player it could full attack and thus preventing the player's char from moving (unless the player's move action is a dismount)?
I thought I read that the mount moves on the player's initiative?

Um.. guess I am still confused. Less than before, but still confused :)

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-06, 05:10 PM
I would think the mount acts entirely on the rider's initiative.

I don't know what the rules actually say, but we've always played animal companions, mounts, and pets as acting on the PC's initiative to whom they belong. If it's based on anything, it's probably in the DMG or PHB - definitely nothing in the SRD.

The rider would have to be pretty stupid to make the mount perform a full attack if he wants to move, though. Mounts are controlled by their riders.

RebelRogue
2009-01-06, 05:35 PM
These (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050125a) might (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050201a) be (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050208a) of (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050215a) help (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050222a).

Dunkelhand
2009-01-06, 08:03 PM
Ok, so, since a paladin mount has an int of at least 6, it does have it's own initiative. And the paladin has to do diplomacy checks in order to command the mount? Is somebody playing it like this?
Or can the paladin simply command the mount?

ericgrau
2009-01-06, 09:17 PM
Ok, so, since a paladin mount has an int of at least 6, it does have it's own initiative. And the paladin has to do diplomacy checks in order to command the mount? Is somebody playing it like this?
Or can the paladin simply command the mount?

Most people act like they have telepathic control of their mount/animal-companion or that the mount/etc. is a 2nd character. But that is usually wrong. Take a look at the handle animal skill and ride skill to see what you can do. Your mount is a war-trained mount, btw.

Basically your mount knows "tricks" like a police dog, which requires a handle animal check and a move action. Plus you can do certain things while mounted, which requires a ride check and some kind of action (often a free action, though). Riding around normally requires no check nor action. Your empathic link also lets you communicate general emotions, which may or may not be helpful. You and/or your DM may argue that your int 6+ mount is smart enough to figure some things out on its own.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-07, 05:14 AM
With, say, paladin mounts and animal companions, I usually think requiring Handle Animal checks is excessive. They're class features.

With most anything else - like, say, a low-level PC buying 10 war dogs and armoring them all - I absolutely think you have to require Handle Animal checks to keep some kind of balance going.