TheRPGSite

I'm looking for something between the two extremes of "your outdoor movement rate is higher now, but everything else is the same" and "your mount is an entire second character with its own stats, skills, personality, hopes, and dreams for you to track". What is your favorite way to represent mounted warriors that shows the advantage of a mount and adds a bit of depth without a lot of extra stuff to track?

+2 to hit vs a footman for height advantage.
You now have the damage of "mounted lance" instead of "spear" if you have a spear and are moving at least at a canter.

Boom.  Done.

I have a question for those of you who track rations.
Do you track food and water for your mount as well? How does that work out?

Yes.  Well.

While not as simple as Gronan's I use the following rules

When fighting from horseback the following rules are in effect.

• When the mounted fighting man moves more than ½ move towards his target he is considered charging.
• Automatically wins initiative if charging. If charging mounted fighting men are present on both sides initiative is diced first among those charging followed by everyone else.
• Gains an advantaged attack roll (or +2) to hit any target on foot
• Any target on foot is at a disadvantage (or -2) on his attack roll to hit the horseman.
• If charging the mounted fighting man gets to double his damage on a successful hit.
• On a charge, the rider may opt to do a knockdown. The horse will slam into the target instead of a rider's weapon attack. If successful the target is knocked prone and must make a favored roll for his saving throw versus paralyzation or be knocked unconscious. Damage is 1d10.

The horse can attack separately from the mounted fighting man.

• The horse may not attack if charging. Note the charging knockdown attack is an exception.
• The horse can only attack a target on foot.
• If a person on foot attacks the horse on the rider's shield side then the horse gains the rider's shield bonus.
• If you track rations a horse requires rations equal to that of an individual character. The referee may rule that if the party is in a fertile region with grass then horse requires only half of the rations an individual needs.

I culled these rules from reading Chainmail 3rd edition. Personally I use advantage (best of 2d20) and disadvantage (worst of 2d20) in lieu of modifiers. But either way works.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;944800Yes.  Well.

How many rations should a mount consume compared to their rider? Is there a good table or rules I should consult for that?

Quote from: Cave Bear;944896How many rations should a mount consume compared to their rider? Is there a good table or rules I should consult for that?

Horses require roughly the same amount of rations as human. Oxen considerably less.

Quote from: estar;944902Horses require roughly the same amount of rations as human. Oxen considerably less.

Horses are bigger animals. Shouldn't they eat more?

Quote from: Cave Bear;944903Horses are bigger animals. Shouldn't they eat more?

Well much more than the average human, but maybe our posters are above average :)  All the info you'd ever need on how much horses and oxen eat is on-line, along with how much pasture they need etc.  Farming and herding is still very much an active profession with many a private and government agency providing stats and advice.  

In general horses and oxen eat about the same amount pound per pound, oxen maybe a bit less.  The thing with oxen is they are not as picky eaters as horses and can get by on cheaper/rougher feed.

In general a human needs about 1 kg of bread a day, to stay nice and plump, a horse is looking at 5-10 kg of hay a day.  Hay of course being a lot easier to grow and process that wheat bread.  So yes horses eat far more in weight than humans, but the cost could be the same or less.

Quote from: Cave Bear;944903Horses are bigger animals. Shouldn't they eat more?

(shrug) It a rule of thumb from several different sources about supplying medieval armies. I believe it takes into account grazing and is focused on costs not volume or weight.. Note you can't sustain a horse on grazing alone as part of a military operation. You need to give them high quality food like harvested oats, etc.



Another way to look at it is that a single warhorse requires the same amount of upkeep as a armored knight. Riding horses are about the same as a light footmen. In 12th century England this was roughly about 6 pounds (1,500 silver pennies) for a knight and the same for his warhorse.

Quote from: estar;944894While not as simple as Gronan's I use the following rules

When fighting from horseback the following rules are in effect.

• When the mounted fighting man moves more than ½ move towards his target he is considered charging.
• Automatically wins initiative if charging. If charging mounted fighting men are present on both sides initiative is diced first among those charging followed by everyone else.
• Gains an advantaged attack roll (or +2) to hit any target on foot
• Any target on foot is at a disadvantage (or -2) on his attack roll to hit the horseman.
• If charging the mounted fighting man gets to double his damage on a successful hit.
• On a charge, the rider may opt to do a knockdown. The horse will slam into the target instead of a rider's weapon attack. If successful the target is knocked prone and must make a favored roll for his saving throw versus paralyzation or be knocked unconscious. Damage is 1d10.

The horse can attack separately from the mounted fighting man.

• The horse may not attack if charging. Note the charging knockdown attack is an exception.
• The horse can only attack a target on foot.
• If a person on foot attacks the horse on the rider's shield side then the horse gains the rider's shield bonus.
• If you track rations a horse requires rations equal to that of an individual character. The referee may rule that if the party is in a fertile region with grass then horse requires only half of the rations an individual needs.

I culled these rules from reading Chainmail 3rd edition. Personally I use advantage (best of 2d20) and disadvantage (worst of 2d20) in lieu of modifiers. But either way works.

These are pretty close the the mounted combat rules in TFT's Advanced Melee, which are approximately (listed in the same sequence):

When fighting from horseback:

• Moving more than 9 or more hexes per turn gives a +2 to damage.
• An advantage to attack sequence is given via DX adjustments for mounted vs unmounted, and the use of longer weapons (pike > lance > polearm > sword/axe/etc).
• No DX adjustment to attack from horseback if expert horseman, -1 if horseman, -2 if no horsemanship talent.
• -2 DX adjustment to attack a mounted figure from the ground unless polearm-equipped (or ranged).
• Polearm charges do double damage in both directions.
• Defending polearms get +2 DX to-hit.
• Mounted figures may direct their horses into opponents on foot, either on contact or by shifting position while engaged. Figures displaced must move back and roll DX or fall. If they end up under a horse, the horse may trample for damage.

The horse can attack separately from the mounted fighting man.

• The horse may not attack if it moves more than half its speed, which with a rider is almost certain to be less than the 9 needed for the +2 damage. Knockdown though is in addition to attacks for damage.
• Horses have hoof and bite attacks (can use both in one turn at a -3DX penalty), but only trained warhorses generally attack unless defending themselves.

Other rules:

• Injured horses may panic (chance based on rider's skill and IQ), with table of possible panic behavior.
• If a rider takes enough damage to knock them down, they fall from the horse.
• People on the ground can try to pull a rider off the horse by making a ST + DX roll, but it takes several people based on the degree of the rider's skill.
• A rider can shift around in the saddle and be in any of the mount's hexes, but not face backwards.
• A rider can tie himself into a saddle to avoid falling off, but will not be able to change which hex they are in.
• There's a table of gradual speed reduction to the horse based on it's ST and how much weight it is carrying.
• Horses are harder to force to stop & fight via the engagement rules. Two adjacent armed facing opponents are required, otherwise the rider can move on past, which can mean much more freedom to determine whom you're fighting each turn, and/or to disengage or move away and back to get another charge attack, etc.
• Rules for cavalry lances (can only be used effectively in head-on charges, but are longer than most weapons so strike first and do enormous damage when used that way).

Quote from: estar;944905(shrug) It a rule of thumb from several different sources about supplying medieval armies. I believe it takes into account grazing and is focused on costs not volume or weight.. Note you can't sustain a horse on grazing alone as part of a military operation. You need to give them high quality food like harvested oats, etc.



Another way to look at it is that a single warhorse requires the same amount of upkeep as a armored knight. Riding horses are about the same as a light footmen. In 12th century England this was roughly about 6 pounds (1,500 silver pennies) for a knight and the same for his warhorse.

Exactly. People can't eat grass.

Also, as  you noted, people still keep horses, so that information is naught but a Google search away.

Quote from: Cave Bear;944896How many rations should a mount consume compared to their rider? Is there a good table or rules I should consult for that?

Cribbled from various sources: 3-5 times. About 15-25 lbs a day. Dependent on size. Heavy War Horses at the upper range.

This feed can be grain, forage, or a mix. Grain has to be bought and carried, which adds to logistical load. Which means a pack train  or a wagon (which can carry more, say up to a ton). Of course, pack animals have to feed too. Of course, once you run out of feed, you can eat the animals...

Easier to forage. Which is usually, but not always, possible, but takes time. At least 4 hours/day.

Here's some good data that might give you some ideas:
http://historicalnovelists.tripod.com/equineda.htm

I also have some specific effects for weapons that relates to mounted combat. Here is a general list of what I use.

• War hammers get +1 to hit versus plate armor
  
• Maces get +1 to hit versus chainmail and Gelatinous creatures (or any flexible armor)
  
• Blackjacks can force targets to make a saving throw or fall unconscious if you roll high enough.
  
• Small Dagger give advantage to hiding them on one's person.
  
• Glaives can attack can attack a target up to five feet away and get a free attack against anybody entering their range for the first time. I opted to do this in lieu of messing around with initiative.
  
• Pikes can attack up to ten feet away and operate like a Glaive. They only be used as a quarterstaff if the target within five feet.
  
• Halberds have three ways of attack (pick one per round). You can use the blade like a Glaive, the spike like a pike. And the hook to knock a target prone or to dismount a mounted warrior. Either only take effect if the target fails a saving throw after a successful to-hit roll.
  

I don't have any double damage if set versus a mounted charge. Not sure why I omitted that maybe I thought the free attack when target comes into reach was sufficient. Anyway I wanted the type of weapons to have some flavor but not to the point where I am asking the referee to look up section 16.2.3.

Nice to see a survey of the btb rules.  Most are basically not much (and leave so much out), or too many modifiers and situational cases and still leave things out.  So you see a lot of house rules.  Basically a horse gives you an attack bonus (somewhat from height) and from mass, both knocking people down and with a lance behind it.  The drawback is you are a big target that is not very nimble, you should get a defensive (e.g. AC) penalty and using missile weapons from horseback is much, much harder unless you (and the horse) have trained in it.


A simple OSR way would be (assuming you PC is proficient in riding and the horse trained) is to give +1 to melee attack, -1 to AC, and -2 (-4 if moving) to missile attack.  Charging attacks with lance do a multiple of damage based on horse size (light, medium, heavy) for example.  It would be great if 2-4 horse stats ad an impact as this would make a good horse a valuable commodity to the PCs.

If you don't know much about horses, or the horse isn't trained for it, you should probably only get the detriments.  A horse has a mind of its own, and sometime not a a very bright one.

Quote from: estar;944936I also have some specific effects for weapons that relates to mounted combat. Here is a general list of what I use.

• War hammers get +1 to hit versus plate armor
  
• Maces get +1 to hit versus chainmail and Gelatinous creatures (or any flexible armor)
  
• Blackjacks can force targets to make a saving throw or fall unconscious if you roll high enough.
  
• Small Dagger give advantage to hiding them on one's person.
  
• Glaives can attack can attack a target up to five feet away and get a free attack against anybody entering their range for the first time. I opted to do this in lieu of messing around with initiative.
  
• Pikes can attack up to ten feet away and operate like a Glaive. They only be used as a quarterstaff if the target within five feet.
  
• Halberds have three ways of attack (pick one per round). You can use the blade like a Glaive, the spike like a pike. And the hook to knock a target prone or to dismount a mounted warrior. Either only take effect if the target fails a saving throw after a successful to-hit roll.
  

I don't have any double damage if set versus a mounted charge. Not sure why I omitted that maybe I thought the free attack when target comes into reach was sufficient. Anyway I wanted the type of weapons to have some flavor but not to the point where I am asking the referee to look up section 16.2.3.

Do you have a document compiling all your rules? I love this stuff!

I thought OSR-style tended towards simplicity. A lot of these rules are giving me a headache. I always liked the simple rule from 2e Castles guide that a mounted lance did double damage. For jousts if hit make a Dex check or get knocked off the horse.

Quote from: quozl;944959Do you have a document compiling all your rules? I love this stuff!

Still working on it but here are some links for

Combat Rules (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx9oLF40m-b8OEtQcC1panBnUDQ/view?usp=sharing)
Equipment (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx9oLF40m-b8bmhaY2xDM2dleGc/view?usp=sharing) (note that I am still working on the hireling section).

Remember I don't think this is a better version of classic D&D. It just how I run classic D&D. Just use whatever works for you. It how most folks run their campaign anyway. While the combined rules will form a complete RPG. The individual sections (like combat and equipment here) can be swapped in for the Swords & Wizardry (https://www.froggodgames.com/swords-wizardry-core-rules) equivalents.

Quote from: Xúc xắc;944746I'm looking for something between the two extremes of "your outdoor movement rate is higher now, but everything else is the same" and "your mount is an entire second character with its own stats, skills, personality, hopes, and dreams for you to track". What is your favorite way to represent mounted warriors that shows the advantage of a mount and adds a bit of depth without a lot of extra stuff to track?

A couple of quick things about Horses and Polearms here, especially Pikes, and Longspears.

Horses are actually very, very, good at dodging natural obstacles even while at a full gallop. The best practical example of this I can give is based on first hand experiences in riding a cutting horse. When I was a teen, I worked summers with my grandfather on a cattle ranch in the highlands of Wyoming. I spent alot of time riding, about as much as I could. There were more than five thousand head of cattle on this ranch, and we would periodically rotate them from mountain pasture to mountain pasture to maintain the pastures. While moving the cattle we often had to move them through rough terrain and heavy forests, and of course the cattle did not always want to stay together, and we would have to round them up.

A cutting horse is especially trained to run down a bull, cow, or calf. When the cow runs of through the forest, the cowboy gets to round them up. While this doesn't usually involve roping them, sometimes it was necessary to rope the lone standout, and let the horse literally drag the cow back to the rest of the herd, where it would then automagically fall in line, ...and follow the rest of the herd.

Now chasing these cattle involved galloping through dense forest with heavy underbrush. The horse was smart enough to know what bushes it could run through, but would expertly dodge low hanging and jutting branches (But often not extend that benefit FOR THE RIDER). Let's just say more than once I was knocked off my horse, or almost knocked out as the horse was running after a cow and I was brushed up against a tree or branch, or got hit by a low hanging branch as the horse ducked under but dragged me right through the low hanging branch, or was brushed up against a tree.

Now the same is true of spear, or pike walls. A horse will charge right up to a wall of spears or pikes, but generally won't ride right through them, but will stop (throwing the rider), or turn or veer away at the last moment. They have a good sense about that and as a general rule just won't try to ride through a planted set of spears or pikes (that looks alot like a forest to them). In mounted combat Horses were trained to charge right through spear and pike walls, but once the first rank of horses were pierced and started bleeding, and the other horses could smell that blood, then they would get all skittish and reluctant again, and would not be wanting to try to go through a spear wall.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]695[/ATTACH]

A real example of this is Napoleons cavalry at Waterloo, where he charged the English Infantry. The English responded by fixing bayonets, and forming squares. Now French Cavalry would ride right up to the squares, but would not overrun the squares, and the English found that they could maintain their battle formation integrity and protect their unit from a full on Cavalry Charge. As long as the square remained unbroken, then the French could not rout or overrun the Infantry. This cost Napoleon his Empire in 1815.

In D&D I would give a mounted Horseman attacking +2 to hit infantry if they are doing a ride by attack, and +4 if charging (Which if hit, the footmen is automatically knocked prone and receives trampling damage from the horse. Anything over 20 is a crit that delivers x3 damage as there is nothing quite like a half-ton to full ton Heavy Warhorse forcefully stomping on your innards and spinal cord, eh?)

Groups of Spearmen and Pikeman negate this bonus as the horses will generally not approach close enough (willingly) for the mounted riders to be able to successfully make an attack. If the Horses are specifically trained to charge Spearmen, then the Pikes and Longspears have reach, and automatically get a first attack against the charging horse and/or rider (or you can roll for initiative vs. THE HORSE, as the horse has to get the rider into range first so the rider can attack).

Quote from: Voros;945007I thought OSR-style tended towards simplicity. A lot of these rules are giving me a headache. I always liked the simple rule from 2e Castles guide that a mounted lance did double damage. For jousts if hit make a Dex check or get knocked off the horse.

The OSR tends toward author's preference. Now I realize that author bias is in nearly every RPG products. But most RPG products are a result of a company effort. Most OSR products are the result of a singular author's vision.  And mine are no different.

What my rules are is a codification of everything I been doing since 2009. Some of them stems from how I ran AD&D 1st edition in the early 80s notably the basic structure of the combat round. Because of that there are more details because those reflect the rulings I made.

For example I always granted a bonus to hit when fighting from horseback. Later I settled on a +2 bonus, then when I found I liked advantage and disadvantage from 5e, I changed it to an advantaged roll two years ago.

Are there some rules that are more or less "designed" and haven't been developed through actual play? Sure, there is a handful of rules I added because I played other fantasy RPGs and either they wrote about that specific topic or it came up when I refereed those games. For example I wrote about the mount attack options because while it never came up in a campaign using these rules. It did come up in a D&D 5e campaign I ran. So I figured I would come up with how I would rule it if it did come up.

It a juggling act between being concise, being too detailed, and what to cover and what not to cover. Individual authors come down differently. I feel that the overall complexity of my take on classic D&D is not as detailed as AD&D but it is more detailed than Core OD&D, or B/X.

Quote from: Xanther;944958The drawback is you are a big target that is not very nimble, you should get a defensive (e.g. AC) penalty

I wouldn't bother with my campaign. D20 makes distinction based on size and it become yet one more modifier to keep track of when you design a monster. Granted size is baked in once figure out the monster's stats.

However classic D&D generally abstracts the concept of size and how easy or tough they are to hit. I assume it is baked into the horses' base AC. Also for me, the dex bonus to AC is not just agility, it natural skill combined with normal weapon skill. So it function just as well on horseback as it does on the ground.

Having said that, classic D&D wouldn't break if you make a ruling that AC is reduced for being on horseback. Especially if you view, as many other referees do, that the AC is a function of agility as well as resistance to damage.

Quote from: Xanther;944958and using missile weapons from horseback is much, much harder unless you (and the horse) have trained in it.

I assume the training by default. It a distinction that classic D&D doesn't make. The assumption in my opinion is that fighting men are proficient in all forms of fighting. Now having said that, I think a classic D&D campaign would run fine if that distinction was important to the referee and he added some rules. Certainly AD&D does in the form of weapon proficiency.

Quote from: Cave Bear;944749I have a question for those of you who track rations.
Do you track food and water for your mount as well? How does that work out?

I mentioned that in the Food & Encumbrance thread. Personally I just track it on a weekly basis. Got enough for a week? Yes? Good. Go fourth.

My house rule for remounts in ACKS:

QuoteRemounts - if the party has two mounts per character (including henchmen/hirelings), they may move at double the long-distance movement rates shown. This is double the speed of the slowest mount in the group. If the party has three mounts per character, they may move at 2.5 times long-distance rates. If the party has four or more mounts per character, they may move at triple the long-distance rates.

To reflect the much faster overland speeds of nomadic/steppe peoples in history. A man with only one horse isn't a cavalryman, he's just one accident away from being an infantryman.

Obviously, my favorite are the mounted rules in Arrows of Indra.  Mind you, those are somewhat attuned to the setting. There's rules not just for horseback but also for war-carriages, and stuff like firing arrows while on horseback or on a carriage.