Hi guys, these are my second attempt at some ideas for how to run mounted combats in TOR. I would appreciate your thoughts.

I have remained with the initial idea that mounted combat is extremely difficult for characters who are not trained in it and that far from giving them the advantages that other RPG's grant, it actually puts them at a serious disadvantage.

I also believe that, in theory, anyone should be able to fight from horseback if trained to do so but that some are better at it than others.

I am also now thinking that an untrained horseman who finds himself in combat whilst mounted is likely to have to spend all of his efforts on controlling his mount and remaining in the saddle.

Previously, I was using Combat Complications to adjudicate on each situation as it arose but, finally, I became unhappy with the series of plusses and minuses. It just didn't seem to fit with TOR.

So, here we go,

1) Player Characters who are not trained in mounted combat, are too concerned with controlling their mounts and remaining in the saddle to make attacks against enemies. These characters can only attack if they spend a point of Hope each time they wish to do so. Likewise, if attacked, they lose their Wits bonus to their parry unless they spend a point of hope.

At this point, the following question may be asked. Why bother with mounted combat at all if it is just a hindrance? The answer is that unless trained in mounted combat, a character really has no business being on a horse when he is in a fight. Characters who are trained to fight whilst mounted will find things a lot more advantageous.

2) There are two ways to offset the negative implications of mounted combat. The first is to be born into a 'Mounted' culture and have the Cultural Blessing:Horselord. The second is to take the Mastery : Mounted Warrior. Both of these will be explained later.

3) Of course, there are advantages to being mounted, even for an untrained rider. These are usually about speed and mobility. It is, therefore, much easier for a mounted character to use the 'Escape Combat' option at TN8.

4)I was also considering that there might be a case for an 'Athletics' roll to be made by an 'untrained rider' under certain circumstances.
The roll would be to represent efforts by the rider to retain control of his mount and would be at TN16. (TN 18 for Dwarfs and for Hobbits on any mount that is larger han a pony)
Success would mean that the rider had retained control, remained mounted and could spend Hope points as required.
Failure would mean that control had been lost and although mounted, the character would be forced to use Escape Combat as his mount tried to get away from danger.
A Gandalf rune is, as always, an automatic success.
The Eye rune, on a Failed roll would indicate that the character has been thrown from the saddle.

If thrown from his mount,the character should roll the feat Die to ascertain damage in points of endurance.
The Gandalf rune would indicate 'nil' damage sustained.
The Eye rune would indicate that a a Wound had been taken.

This would occur at the LM's discretion. Suggested examples might be if foes successfully ambush the character or if the foe is n animalistic predator(warg or spider). Of course, this could be completely avoided by the judicious use of the 'Horseman' trait(see later).

Background Trait: Horseman

A character with this trait can ride a horse and knows how to saddle and maintain his mount. Additionally, this trait allows a character to control his mount in a combat situation.


Cultural Blessing: Horselord

This blessing enables a character to fight proficiently when mounted. The character gains an automatic Combat Advantage Die(as well as any rolled for)to represent the tactical advantage and intrinsic skill that a rider from a mounted culture has over his foes.
Additionally, while mounted, all attacks made against opponents on foot use Favoured Body for calculation of damage and opponents attacking back must roll the Feat Die twice and take the worst result.


Mastery: Mounted Warrior

This mastery permits a character to fight as proficiently from horseback as he does when afoot.
Additionally, the character gains an automatic Combat Advantage Die(as well as any rolled for) when facing opponents on foot and these opponents, if they can attack back, must roll the Feat Die twice and take the worst result. This represents the tactical advantage of the trained cavalryman over a foe on foot.

Halbarad, I really like where you are going with this. The assumption feels spot-on that not being trained to fight on horseback means--don't do it.

Using Hope as a means to enable attack; and, in defense, allow the rider untrained in mounted combat to maintain a parry (Wits free to parry) rings true to the narrative.

The use of Athletics as you describe implies a Task Roll in my mind. If this is true to your thoughts, then I would suggest the Athletics Task roll allows the expenditure of Hope in the following turn to attack. this as opposed to allowing the attack in the same turn. With this comment, I think we maintain the clear understanding that one Task and only one Task is possible per turn. This is important. With this line of thinking the Task roll represents an attempt to control the horse to attack next turn. Failure disallows an attack; and the Eye of Sauron, instead of being thrown from the horse, is similar to an Eye of Sauron in combat. The next round your opponent will make a Called Shot.

When it comes to parry, I think less attention (Wits) would be given to horse control and more to try and parry. The player-hero makes an Athletics Task roll to stay on the horse while attempting a parry. A success allows the player-hero to parry. Failure, the player-hero can spend a point of Hope to succeed and parry. If Hope expenditure doesn't transform the failure into a success, then the failed Task means all the player-heroes attention was given to staying on the horse instead of parrying. Eye of Sauron results in being thrown from the horse with the Feat die result from the the Athletics Task roll being the Endurance loss suffered.

This minimizes additional rolls by placing all the results in interpreting the one roll for the Task. Along this line of thinking, I might suggest a single Athletics Task roll from which you interpret the results for attack and defence.

Hmmmmmm, I think I complicated your rule. Toss away my suggestion but maybe keep the intention: If you could figure a way to determine everything from one roll, that would really be in the spirit of the TOR mechanic of minimal rolls maximum information.

Regards,
E

Thanks for the input Eluadin. I will give your ideas some thought and see if I can come up with something. This is my best shot to date though....

Quite interesting. I still need to do a lot more reading... but here are a few points you might want to consider.

Mount Type: You have assumed Horses and Ponies. You might want to consider a more "mount neutral" philosophy to account for Oliphants, Warg Riders, Pteradactyls (flying Nazgul), Eagles (hmm, were they ever ridden or were passengers dangling like prey?), Goats (LotRO). Keeping in mind that some players will be participating in campaigns where NPCs are given detailed write-ups including stats.

Uber Steeds: Middle-Earth did not have mounts that were so well trained that riding automatically conveyed a benefit (Blessing, Trait, Reward, etc) to the rider. That is, Rohirrum mounts do not bestow Horselord (or equivalent) status to a Dwarf - or anyone else. The Maeras and elven steeds might be an exception, but their write-ups should specifically make such a statement.

Neutral Naming: Just as with the mount types, I would suggest more neutral terminology than Horseman or Horselord. This allows them to be used in multiple s without change. Riding would work for Horseman, but I'm stumped on Horselord since you have Mounted Warrior. Expert Riding? The terms you created are completely usable and atmospherically appropriate. So feel free to ignore this suggestion.

Thanks for your thoughts, Garn.

I am not really thinking about more exotic riding beasts for characters at the minute. Many of them are riding beasts of the 'Enemy' and I think a Shadow Ability might be more appropriate in those cases.

I am actually working on a few shadow abilities to be added into this piece of work.

I have deliberately gone with titles that are a bit like the Rohirrim. The reason s because I am developing a mounted culture which can be used in their own right or as a faux Rohirrim until the official take comes out.

These are my initial thoughts on a shadow ability 'Warg rider '.

Fighting from the back of a huge mass of fur, fangs and bad temper must be extremely difficult. I imagine that most of the time, the Orc is simply clinging to it's mount and attempting not to fall off. I take the view that Wargs are Wild Wolves and will not allow themselves to be saddled.

Orcs with this shadow ability may spend points of hate to make attacks whilst mounted. The Warg mount may attack as normal. It has no regard for it's rider and doesn't care if it falls off.

I am using Snaga Trackers as the base for Warg Riders but giving them 2 extra Hate points. They must be consumed with hate for the Free people's if they are crazy enough to fight from the back of a Warg.

Thoughts anyone?

Sorry if I'm being thick, but is the Horselord cultural blessing mechanically identical to the Mounted warrior mastery?

Francesco
P.S.: nice stuff!

Hi Francesco,

They are not quite the same. The Combat Advantage Die is only awarded versus 'dismounted' opponents for the Mastery.

It is to represent that trained riders with the 'Blessing' from rider cultures are naturally superior to other trained riders with the 'Mastery'.

Thanks for your kind words.

Thanks!
Good, blessings should be more effective than masteries. Actually, they should be better by a rather large margin. The 'ideal' order of magnitude between special abilities should normally be 1. Blessings 2. Cultural Virtues 3. Masteries.

Francesco

Francesco, thanks for the insight. Do you think that the Blessing needs something extra? Would making all combat skills 'Favoured' (when mounted) be unbalancing?

I would try to add an extra boost, yes. Making all combat skills favoured is a bit too much though.

Francesco

I thought so as well. I have edited the post about the Blessing to include damage against foot opponents being calculated on Favoured Body.

If anyone has any other ideas, feel free to chip in.

I like the way this is heading Halbarad

A few games go the "mounted combat lowers penalties from burden" route (Ars Magica among others). There are also historical documents citing how knights got butchered when forced to fight unmounted; not due to lack of skills, but because they tired too quickly (cue historical facts internet war).

I've been trying to find a way to make mounted combat work with fatigue in TOR, but I haven't yet found a way to correlated the two in any elegant ways. I feel mounted combat should have something to do with the weary condition and motivate the existence of heavier armours, which at the moment seem excessively encumbering without some ways of diminishing fatigue.

I think you are on the right track by revolving mainly around mobility, but I feel it should also include "mobility of warriors otherwise too encumbered to be efficient foot soldiers". Cavalry in TOR shouldn't simply be mobile infantry, which is a very modern concept.

This is obviously only food for thought, I don't have any set propositions...

Glorfindel

Thanks Glorfindel.

Nice idea there and one which may help me to fill a Virtue slot.

What about the idea that trained cavalrymen know how to position themselves in the saddle so that the horse bears some of the weight of the armour. 'Armoured Rider' or Knight of Rhovanion'?
The initial benefit is low, say Encumbrance of armour is reduced by 1 point. This can then be built upon in future fellowship phases by spending experience points to a maximum figure of 3.

I thought about simply allowing a stat based deduction from total encumbrance, but didn't want to cheapen the effectiveness of the Dwarf Cultural Blessing.

There might a less effective version as a Mastery for non mounted cultures.

What do you think?

Ok, a further background trait and a pair of Masteries to complete the set.

Background Trait: Animal Husbandry.

A character with this trait is familiar with the handling, breeding and general well being of domesticated animals.


Mastery: Mounted Bowman.

This mastery allows a character to use a Bow whilst mounted. Longbows may never be used whilst on horseback.


Mastery: Armoured Rider.

A character with this Mastery has learned how to let his steed share the burden of his war gear. Total encumbrance may be reduced by two points when mounted.

A little bit of thread Necromancy.
I raised this from the dead as it might help to explain some of the ideas in the Hunkarim thread.
I hope that a final amended draft of these 'rules' will be in the next issue of Other Minds but these are usable in the meantime.