Has anyone developed any rules for mounted combat?

As a first pass this is what I am thinking of.
- Mounted Characters can tie up three opponents instead of two for allowing others to be rearward.

- After ranged fire Mounted Characters may charge their opponents. Gaining a +2 to their weapon roll TN and a piercing wound on a great success or higher.

- Mounted Characters with a combat advantage die may spend it for another charge. This charge represents the character capitalizing on the flow of the battle to charge another opponent.

anyone else have any ideas?

I'd probably require an Athletics skill check or else some kind of "cavalryman" trait to initiate the charge. Maybe both.

Nice Idea! I hadnt thought of that.
Standard TN 14 or higher?

TN 14 unless the circumstances are particularly poor (untrained horse, icy ground) or particularly good.

A player-hero can only use as many weapon skill ranks as she or he has Athletics skill ranks. This capturing that truth that one must be a good horseman before one can be a good mounted fighter. A successful Battle test adds after this limitation.

The trait "Saddle-born" can be used to counter this limitation if appropriately worked into the drama by the payer.

A mounted character uses the TN of the combat stance taken, but the Enemy uses the TN of the next more defensive stance.

I would hesitate to count a mounted fighter altering the rules for defending rearward stance. I have a new combat task meant the Barding Great Shield that accomplishes this, the "Shield Wall." But, I can see where holding off more opponents to cover those attempting a rearward stance might be possible with a mounted combatant. Somehow, I would want to interlock this with Athletics. Maybe, at the beginning of combat a mounted fighter makes both a Battle and an Athletics roll. The successful Battle test works as designed. The successful Athletics test enables the bonuses possible with mounted combat. Fail the Athletics test and your just another combatant in the engagement.

Eluadin,
I think you are on the right track with pairing it more with athletics. I like the nuance you added with the weapon skills too.

I had been working on my own mounted combat rules. They are quite simple, but are based on the premise that unless a character is a trained horseman he will actually be disadvantaged by fighting from horseback.
1) a mounted character automatically receives a single combat advantage die(as if a successful 'battle' roll had been made).
** the same character is then entitled to make a normal *battle* roll for the start of the combat**

2) all rolls (including the battle roll)are then treated as combat complications using the table in the LM book.
Riders are classed as follows,
1) rider with the 'horseman' trait.
2) untrained rider

Mounts are classed as follows
1) pony
2)untrained horse
3)trained horse

1) an untrained rider on a pony or an untrained horse attracts -4 complication penalty.
2) an untrained rider on a trained horse attracts a -2 penalty.
3) a rider with the Horseman trait on an untrained horse attracts a -2 penalty.
4) a rider with the Horseman trait on a trained horse attracts no penalty.
5) a Hobbit on a pony attracts a -2 penalty.
6) a Dwarf on a pony attracts a -4 penalty.
7) neither Dwarfs nor Hobbits may fight from horseback in normal circumstances.

Untrained in this case does not mean untrained to ride, it means untrained in mounted combat. A trained horse could be a cavalry steed that will not bolt in combat. It would not be a Warhorse that also bites and kicks. I'm going to over this under something else.

Halbarad,
So other than the combat advantage die what are the pluses to being trained in mounted combat?

If all mounted combat does is down play the disadvantages one would have then way dedicate time to it at all? Know what I mean?

you could give a trained rider some travel bonus....OR maybe use it like THe Hound, it then it could soak up some fatigue or something

I thought a very famous hobbit did fight mounted and invent golf?

JRR,hobbits and Dwarfs can both fight from ponies(sorry if that wasn't clear from the examples). They are just at a minus complication to do so. Also, for larger horses, there is the caveat 'under normal circumstances'. Of course a hobbit may be fortunate enough to share a steed with a young Dernhelm. This caveat allows the Loremaster to make these sort of exceptions. I suppose that there's really nothing to prevent a Hobbit who has lived among the Rohirrim from taking the Horseman trait to use from a pony but that is the remit of the individual Loremaster
You are right about the Horseman trait though, I had envisaged that it might be invoked in the same way as Hardy to fend off the worst excesses of fatigue during mounted travel.
Also, you are on the same wavelength as me when you compare the Woodman Hound virtue. I'm working on something like this for the Warhorses of my Horsefolk Of Rhovanion culture. Not quite sure about how it works yet though.

Telcontar, when I started thinking about these rules, it occurred to me that the TOR combat system takes normal RPG combat tropes, abstracts them and turns them on their heads. I mean to say, initiative for defenders....????
So anyway, it occurred to me that most of this game is about footslogging around the Wilderlands. There are definite advantages to being mounted in combat but these (IMO)are mostly about mobility and superior position rather than adding bonuses to hit or damage. I felt that automatically awarding a combat advantage die to each mounted character represented this quite fairly with the potential to double the pool of said dice. That's actually a heck of an advantage.
This was balanced out by the complications table and my thoughts that an untrained horseman would find being mounted in combat to be disadvantageous.
So, in short, being mounted is a tactic which grants a single 'free' combat advantage die and a warrior with the horseman trait attracts no minuses for being mounted.

Also, we have to remember the opponent in all of this. Assuming a mounted Easterling, he is in exactly the same position and so mounted combat simply becomes an abstraction of foot combat except that as an Enemy/monster he cannot avail of combat advantage IIRC.
When the opponent is on foot, let's say an Orc soldier, he is in a disadvantageous position on the complications table. I was going to proceed as follows.

Being faced by a rider without the horsemanship trait attracts no complication penalty. (the lack of ability of the rider offsets the superior position).
Being faced by a rider with the Horseman trait on an untrained horse or pony attracts a -2 complication penalty.
Being faced by a rider with the Horseman trait on a trained horse attracts a -4 complication penalty.

I realise that I hadn't detailed the last part of my rules in the previous post, but I hope that they are more palatable now.

have you thought about making the stipulation that the mounted character can not share his bonus combat advantage with another player or are you thinking along the lines that the mounted player can be where and what they are doing confer the die to another player?

Right on the button Telcontar, the bonus 'free' combat advantage die can only be used by the mounted warrior as it is the fact that he is mounted that has generated it. There might be a case for sharing in wholly mounted fellowships to help offset complications, or amongst the mounted members of partially mounted groups though. What do you think?

I have been looking at Voidstates Easterlings again. His rules for lance give the 'called shot' as piercing, where the feat die may be rolled twice and the best result taken, if the character declares a 'charge'. I like this, but how to rule for charging is the question.At the moment I am considering the following.

Any character who chooses 'forward' stance in the first round of a combat encounter may state that he/she is 'charging'.

While this gives no extra benefit to combatants on foot beyond the normal rules it enables a mounted warrior with a lance to avail of the special rules.
I am wondering if the wielder might have to revert to a back up weapon if this attack was successful?

Also, could someone confirm whether or not enemies can avail of combat advantages?
Thanks.

hmmm....I dont believe that the enemies get combat advantages, they can be aided by the complications modifiers though.

For the charge what about allowing the mounted characters to use the charge after the ranged volley phase of the combat only. Once general close combat begins they would no longer have the room to charge or be able to generate the shock that the weight of the horse would have. This would also keep combat streamlined and generic so as not to get into specific spatial concerns.

the only other thing I can think of off the cuff is that the mounted character would have to start in a rearward stance and move to forward on the next turn to get a charge. This would complicate things though with enemies trying to charge and the first solution seems the easiest and equitable way to deal with it.

I also envision mounted warriors fighting with either spears or swords, so switching to another weapon wouldnt be required. I think this fits more with a dark ages feel.

Telcontar, i think that the first option is definitely favourable over the second. The second adds a whole level of extra and unneccessary complication to the system. The first could be worked quite well by making 'initial charge' simultaneous with 'opening volley'. I also agree that, like 'opening volley', it should be limited to the very first action of any combat sequence. That makes it a case of either/or, so no ranged attack followed by charge scenario. It's one or the other.
So far so good.

I have been trying to avoid damage bonuses for charges as that is the standard Rpg approach and I am trying to keep this as abstract a possible. How do we differentiate between a bonus for charging foot soldiers and charging horsemen?
I am thinking that the fact that the rider gets the extra 'free' combat advantage die, whereas the footslogger doesn't, kinda covers this.
What about, in a declared charge, the charging party gets to roll the feat die twice and take the best result no matter what weapon they are armed with. This is to represent the momentum built up for the first attack.
Finally, all charging characters are counted as being in 'Forward stance' and opponents in 'Rearward stance' cannot be engaged unless the normal criteria is met.

Agree totally with you about the Dark Ages feel and the preponderence of sword and spear as the weapons of choice for mounted warriors.

Agreed! We don't see alot of the whole heavy cavalry with couched lances theme in the books, in fact, even the Swan-knights of Dol Amroth seem to maintain that earlier feel, IMHO.

Thus, I like these rules & intend to use them myself until C7 issues something to the contrary - the Rohirrim in The War of the Ring core set I presume (?)

Speaking of which, won't it be cool Halbarad if you see some variation of your rules in print someday?

Halbarad,
right on! I agree with you that the house rules should try and maintain the abstract quality of combat as it stands and not be cluttered with lots of pluses and minuses. The more I think about it the more I think that the combat advantage die is the way to go. A Feat die reroll also seems to fit the mold of being simple and effective at the same time.

I might streamline it even further. Characters without Mounted Combat would gain a standard disadvantage when fighting from horseback whether the horse was trained or not and keep it simple. I'm not sure how much value is added in breaking it down into all those categories. Have you given this a shot yet to see how it plays out at the table?

I am thinking along these lines:

Mounted Combat Trait:

You have been trained in the art of fighting from horseback. This allows you to use the weight and speed of your mount to gain an advantage in combat.
A mounted character with Mounted Combat automatically receives a single combat advantage die (as if a successful 'battle' roll had been made) in addition to the regularly allowed roll.
After the Volley Phase the Character may ‘charge’ their adversaries. This initial attack allows the mounted character to attack first unless surprised and move immediately into the Forward Stance. On this single attack the character achieves a piercing blow on any great or extraordinary success.

Characters without the Mounted Combat trait suffer a -2 Combat Disadvantage while mounted and may not take advantage of a charge.

Mounted Archers with Mounted Combat do not suffer a -2 penalty for fighting while mounted.

Escape Combat
At the end of a round, make an Athletics roll, TN 10 plus the highest Attribute level among the opponents you are facing. If you succeed you have escaped combat.

I think that we have almost reached agreement Telcontar. I still think that the complication needs to be -4 and that we really do need to differentiate between a steed that is battle trained and one that is not(especially where we re introducing a mounted martial culture).

A further thing to consider might be a lower TN to 'Escape Combat'. What do you think?

I am also thinking that Horseman, Mounted Warrior and Mounted Archer should all be separate traits.

Ok so unskilled a flat -4 and only trained mounts can charge?

Escape Combat TN 8?

Three different traits is possible, that would certainly increase a cultural tradition difference between who had which ones. In the long run this is probably a better way to go.

Sounds just about right to me.

Done and done.

All that remains is to define exactly what the three traits are.

I imagine that Horseman be invoked in similar circumstances to Hardy for mounted travel. It might also allow mounted characters to bypass obstacles(jump hedges etc) or even trick riding. On second thoughts Trick Rider might be a Trait all of it's own?

Mounted warrior and Mounted Archer are fairly self explanatory but it should probably be stipulated that it doesn't just refer to bows. This is also the trait to invoke if a character throws javelins etc from horseback.

Any further thoughts?

If you tie specific game mechanics to traits, That seems to break the pattern followed by other traits. Maybe mounted combat as envisioned here should be a virtue, possible a cultural virtue. My guess is that mounted skill will show up as a cultural virtue of the Rohirrim. But back to the system, a trait that offers a direct effect on the game outside of narrative would be odd.

Try mounts combat as a virtue and it will harmonize more with the existing mechanics in my opinion.

Another way of capturing the influence of the mount without complicating the system by pluses and minuses, limit the number of Success Dice available based on the mount. In a sense a mount trained for war, all combat skill ranks available. An untrained mount, no more than three skill ranks are available. This can assume the rest of the player-hero's proficiency is distracted in mastering the mount during the fray and mayhem of conflict.

Mounted Combat I agree is starting to walk down the Virtue path. We could keep Horseman as a trait and use it like Hardy, "You are accustomed to long travel over great distances while mounted."

I am intrigued by the skill reduction idea as well for untrained beasts and characters. Here is a third option:

Untrained characters or characters on untrained mounts are considered weary in regard to skill rolls while mounted.

This will give roughly a 25% decrease in efficiency and require limited record keeping.


I honestly would like to see which one of the three concepts we have plays out best around a table. My current mantra is Flavor with Simplicity.

EDIT: ehh that wont work if when they actually become weary.....

Hello Halbarad and Telcontar

At the moment, your mounted combat rules do not consider the quality of your mount. I don't know if that is intentional or not. The hounds of Mirkwood aren't mechanically distinguishable, but the corpus of Tolkien do include beasts of superior quality (Shadowfax for one, but Bill the pony could also be considered above standard).

Superior mounts could be considered extra rewards, perhaps with qualities akin to weapons and armours?

Alternatively, a rider could invoke the attribute of its mount when spending hope (instead of its own). This would recreate in simple terms the relationship between a rider's skill and its mount's ability. Obviously, it would imply that the mount possess a set of attributes, and perhaps a full array of stats. This would not be so different from the goblin/wargs symbiosis, whereas both entities are treated as separate creature (don't have the books with me, but is there a word on orcs mounted on wargs?).

Glorfindel

I dig it Glorfindel


If Horse is a reward, which it is right now. We could flush out some Qualities so that it could be improved. Any suggestions?

Stating the horse out like a LM Character might not be a bad idea.

I just realized that if we stat out Horses then they have endurance. If they have endurance they can be killed. If they are killed then it kind of breaks the plot immunity that rewards have.

Yes, I was pondering over this as well. I think they need to be rewards and not creatures. Besides, heroes are not there to kill their opponent's horses either, although some other mounts could face another fate (such as the goblin's wargs or the mumak of Harad).

It could have been done differently, but the hounds of Mirkwook set a precedent that, I think, should be respected. Enemies use different sets of rules anyways, so not need to worry about what the heroes might face...

Glorfindel

Eluadin,I'm not sure where you get the idea that the traits at tied to specific skills except possibly in my, occasionally poor, ability to communicate my meaning.

By defining them, I simply mean the blurb that accompanies them.

In the second paragraph above I am just musing on the circumstances in which they might be invoked rather than attempting to tie them.

There are no bonuses in this version of mounted combat, just lesser and greater levels of complication and complications are integral to the combat system.

If I may present a few examples.

Frithgern of Dale is carrying a message from the King to Lord Ulfstan of Northhold in the upper reaches of the Redwater valley. He has been travelling for several days when he suddenly finds that a small gulley blocks his path. Time is of the essence and he cannot afford to search for a place to cross. He invokes his 'horseman' trait and jumps his steed across the gulley.

Later, on the banks of the Redwater, he finds himself in the retinue of Lord Ulfstan as they swoop down, out of the trees, on a band of Easterlings who are struggling out of a swollen ford. The bank is slippery but he invokes his 'Horseman' trait and his steeds footing is sure. As the defenders of the ford, the mounted Bardings have initiative. Several arrows fly overhead as the horsemen charge. All of the Barding cavalry are on trained horses and so they suffer a -2 combat complication as they charge, in forward stance, into the milling raiders. Frithgern invokes his 'mounted warrior' trait and suffers no complication penalty for fighting from horseback.
He automatically gets a combat advantage die for being mounted and has no negative complications on his battle roll. With two extra dice he charges his opponent, scoring a great success and causing a piercing wound with his longsword.
Ulfstan and his warriors, on the other hand, have the 'horseman' trait and reach the enemy
easily enough. Despite the fact that their horses were traded from the Horsefolk and are combat trained they are still at a -2 complication as they themselves do not possess, and thus cannot invoke, the 'mounted Warrior' trait (this is their first battle as horsemen). They still get the free combat advantage die but their battle rolls are at -2 for the potential second die, as are all their
actions in the melee. Luckily, Ulfstan has a score of Barding Bowmen in the trees in rearward
stance.

Hi Glorfindel, we are already on this. If you look in the Rohirrom thread you will see a virtue called Horse Whisperer. This is a virtue that I envisage will enable a rider to train his cavalry mount to act as a Warhorse in a manner similar to the Hound of the Woodmen that you mention.
Still very much, a work in progress though and so your thoughts and opinions are very welcome.

Just for the flavour,
what if the automatic piercing wound on great and extraordinary success is allowed only if attacking with a spear?

Traits tend to be invoked and allowed when they don't counter something that might have dramatic consequences. It seemed eliminating the complication based on Trait invocation was a dramatic consequence...

Darn it, now I am having a crisis of faith. It all seemed so simple when I put the initial idea together. I am now not sure that Mounted Archer and Mounted Warrior should be traits. Eluadin makes a good point about traits and dramatic consequence. Both of the examples I gave above would be dramatic situations. The rulebook paragraph on automatic success is open to interpretation and I could be bloody minded about it, but I won't. I tend to agree with Eluadin, now that I understand exactly what he meant. I also am starting to move into the 'Virtue' camp along with Glorfindel, not Cultural Virtues, but Masteries for Mounted Warrior and Mounted Archer.

Part of the reason is my argument that any character should be, in the right circumstances, able to become a mounted warrior or archer. I thought this could be done by making them traits which are changeable in the Fellowship Phase. What I failed to grasp was that only the distinctive feature traits are changeable, not the background speciality traits. As I would like these mounted combat rules not to break any of the basic system rules, then Traits won't work.

I still think the basic concept of complications to untrained riders as opposed to bonuses to trained riders is fundamentally sound. I am now thinking the following.

New Background 'speciality' Traits.

Horseman- as per the distinctive feature trait Hardy, except when mounted.
Animal Husbandry- similar to Beast Lore but animal specific, in this case-Horses.

New Masteries

Mounted Warrior

This mastery allows a bonus of plus two on combat complications (up to a maximum of nil) in mounted melee.

Mounted Archer

This mastery allows a bonus of plus two on combat complications(up to a maximum of nil) in mounted missile combat.

Horse Whisperer(possibly Cultural Virtue)

Your skill and knowledge around horses are near legendary. You have never had to lay whip to your steed, nor apply your spurs, yet you seem to be able to spur your mount to greater feats of endurance while keeping it hale. People say that you can actually speak to your steed.

On a travel roll you may re-roll the feat die and take the best result.
On a healing roll (specific to horses) you gain a plus 4 bonus.
Only any Athletics roll(specific to riding) you may re-roll the feat die and keep the best result.

Ps ,slight faux pas above. Change spur to urge in the description of Horse Whisperer.

In my mond, the revision to virtues makes more sense. Moreover, create a cultural virtue for "horse folk" that not only provides the affects of the mastery, but allows a re-roll on the Feat Die during combat from horseback. This might capture the reality that a mounted warrior drawn from among the "horse folk" possessed an innate talent for mounted combat beyond the ken of others. While training might vary, e.g., the Knights of Dol Amroth might possess far greater skill and training in fighting from horseback, they will never possess the innate talent (re-roll of the Feat Die) that is the birthright of the "horse folk." It's consistent in many ways to the application of advantages due to game mechanics.

Then, the untrained a complication exists when fighting from horseback.

I think that Telcontar is working on a 'cultural blessing' that should hopefully cover that aspect.

I'm glad you're working on the horses aspect as well - it's been troubling me reading your posts , but now you're addressing the issue .

BTW, reading the description of the battle at the ford with Ulfstan & his Riders is inspiring - you remind me of Eorl the Young at Celebrant. Nicely done!

I must disagree on this point once again. Traits do not only permit automatic actions when the consequences of success or failure are undramatic: they may be used for automatic actions whether the outcome is dramatic or not. The only limit to automatic actions is that they only produce ordinary successes; you cannot achieve a great or extraordinary success in an automatic action.

Ok I am lost now. So traits are out I see that.

For the riders of rhovanion we have a cultural blessing of mounted combat. We now need a generic virtue that can be picked up by any player right?

I would go with no bonus combat advantage die and leave that as part of the heroic tradition of a horse people.

I take it that you guys have discussed this before.
In this particular case the rider invokes a trait so that he is able to fight in mounted melee combat with no negative complications.
As I said previously, the way traits can be invoked for automatic success is open to interpretation. It could be read either way. I do tend to favour the notion that dice rolls should be made where dramatic consequences may arise from either success or failure. I digress.......
The rider should not even have been able to score a great success using trait invocation, so thats another reason for my shift to the Virtues/Masteries camp for mounted combat.