Mounted Combat Rules - Critiques Welcome!

[TheMonarchGamer]

Hey everyone, I figured I'd post my mounted combat rules I wrote up. I tried to make it pretty advantageous to be mounted during combat (I don't think anyone can forget the Rohirrim's charge. Either of them, for that matter.), however, I also tried to balance it out a little with secondary rules so that its not totally overpowered.

Mounted Combat:
~ No one may not be mounted indoors, and may not mount during a fight. May dismount as an action, and must spend an action to untangle one's self if your mount is killed. If the mount flees, you are automatically and instantly considered to be 'on foot.' No action is required to dismount or untangle.

~ Ponies will flee as soon as attacked (not even hit) - a successful persuade roll will recover them after the battle, but they will always leave combat once attacked.
Riding horses will flee as soon as hit. Same roll as with ponies to keep from losing them.
War horses will not flee unless the player is unhorsed or dismounts - then then automatically flee, and the same roll is required to retrieve them.

~ May use travel or battle for the preliminary roll

~ May attack any combat stance, including Rearward.

~ May automatically escape from any infantry

~ If NPC's, may convert hate points into combat advantage dice as needed.
If companions, receive 2 bonus combat advantage dice at the beginning of combat as long as the company could be considered charging or attacking.

~ Attacks, using spears, pikes, or other polearms, against mounted targets or horses have a +1 skill bonus.

~ If any roll of Sauron by either the enemy or the companion, then the horse is hit. Conduct a free attack on the horse:
Endurance 12, Parry 5. Armor 1d for riding horses or ponies, and 2d for war horses.

~ Enemies may directly attack the horse.

~ Mounted characters who suffer knockback become unhorsed and immediately count as dismounted.

~ Mounted characters automatically fail to ambush (unless sufficient reason is given - IE They emerge from a cave that is out of sight when ambushing.

~ When fighting against mounted characters, one less opening volley is allowed.

[zedturtle]

How much Endurance does a horse have?

Is the killing of a mount ever a reason to accrue Shadow points?

[Hermes Serpent]

Try using the Silmaril app to find all the previous threads on Mounted Combat. It's probably been done before. You don't need to waste your time reinventing the wheel and officlal rules are likely to be coming in the Rohan supplement that's coming out shortly.

[Otaku-sempai]

Grammer! Those double negatives will get you every time.

No one may not be mounted indoors, and may not mount during a fight.

What this liteally says is that combatants must be mounted while indoors. Not what you intended.

I think that your rule about ponies fleeing is a bit too absolute and doesn't account for them possibly being under the control of a wrangler (or tied or otherwise restrained).

[cuthalion]

Try using the Silmaril app to find all the previous threads on Mounted Combat. It's probably been done before. You don't need to waste your time reinventing the wheel and officlal rules are likely to be coming in the Rohan supplement that's coming out shortly.

A bit harsh? Let's keep it positive.

. . . also, Palantir app? Unless someone's been hiding the Silmaril app from Morgoth all this time . . .

[TheMonarchGamer]

How much Endurance does a horse have?

Is the killing of a mount ever a reason to accrue Shadow points?

I decided to give horses/ponies 12 endurance points. I figured that's a fair amount, but not too outrageous. I believe that's actually in the post.

And I love the idea of Shadow points for killing mounts.

[TheMonarchGamer]

Grammer! Those double negatives will get you every time.

No one may not be mounted indoors, and may not mount during a fight.

What this liteally says is that combatants must be mounted while indoors. Not what you intended.

I think that your rule about ponies fleeing is a bit too absolute and doesn't account for them possibly being under the control of a wrangler (or tied or otherwise restrained).

Heh, yeah, I really need to double check my notes before I post them here.
That's a fair point about the mounts fleeing. I'm not really sure on how to handle them when separate from their rider, as I don't want to make the bookkeeping TOO complex. Maybe require a persuade check during combat to keep them from fleeing, otherwise, they flee as previously stated?

[StuartJ]

Try using the Silmaril app to find all the previous threads on Mounted Combat. It's probably been done before. You don't need to waste your time reinventing the wheel and officlal rules are likely to be coming in the Rohan supplement that's coming out shortly.

A bit harsh? Let's keep it positive.

. . . also, Palantir app? Unless someone's been hiding the Silmaril app from Morgoth all this time . . .

Hermes may seem a bit curmudgeonly, but I'm sure his heart is in the right place ... Indeed, a search in the Palantir reveals:

• some thoughts about mounted combat on the old forum, including a discussion with some input from Francesco
• an entire article on Mounted Combat for TOR in the wonderful Other Minds magazine, issue 14.

Hope this helps give you some inspiration, even if you decide on your own house rules - and that the Palantir can come in handy again in future!

[Glorelendil]

As others have pointed out, official mounted combat rules are imminent, but I love this sort of stuff so I'll respond anyway. Below are specific comments/concerns:

~ No one may not be mounted indoors, and may not mount during a fight. May dismount as an action, and must spend an action to untangle one's self if your mount is killed. If the mount flees, you are automatically and instantly considered to be 'on foot.' No action is required to dismount or untangle.

I'm confused by this paragraph; it seems to say that an action is both required and not required for dismounting/untangling.

~ May use travel or battle for the preliminary roll

I understand the temptation to categorize "horsemanship" under Travel, but if you read the description of that skill it really has little to do with fighting from horseback. I'd suggest dropping this specific rule; Battle should be sufficient on its own.

~ May attack any combat stance, including Rearward.

Adversaries don't have Stances, so this part would not be applicable to heroes.

~ If NPC's, may convert hate points into combat advantage dice as needed.

That seems a little weird to me. Why would you suddenly get to make this conversion simply because you are fighting from horseback? I could see it as a special ability that some adversaries have, but not as a general ability that anybody gets by jumping on a horse.

~ Attacks, using spears, pikes, or other polearms, against mounted targets or horses have a +1 skill bonus.

Does that mean skill is increased by one level, or you add +1 to the die roll? If the former it feels too strong, if the latter it feels too weak.

~ If any roll of Sauron by either the enemy or the companion, then the horse is hit. Conduct a free attack on the horse:
Endurance 12, Parry 5. Armor 1d for riding horses or ponies, and 2d for war horses.

So there's a 1/12 chance of the rider hitting his own horse? That seems improbably high. Conversely, all automatic hits by the enemy are instead hits on the horse? What if the enemy doesn't want to hit the horse? Seems odd that an automatic success instead becomes a "wrong target" success.

My instinct is that accidental hits on a horse, despite the possible realism, wander a bit too far into the "simulationist" realm for the spirit of TOR. In fact, I'd remove intentional attacks on mounts as well, or at least don't bother tracking endurance and wounds and such. Something like, "If you target the mount instead, roll something; if successful, the opponent must make some other roll or get dismounted." Hound of Mirkwood might be the right model here.

[TheMonarchGamer]

Thanks all for the other comments.

As others have pointed out, official mounted combat rules are imminent, but I love this sort of stuff so I'll respond anyway. Below are specific comments/concerns:

~ No one may not be mounted indoors, and may not mount during a fight. May dismount as an action, and must spend an action to untangle one's self if your mount is killed. If the mount flees, you are automatically and instantly considered to be 'on foot.' No action is required to dismount or untangle.

I'm confused by this paragraph; it seems to say that an action is both required and not required for dismounting/untangling.

~ May use travel or battle for the preliminary roll

I understand the temptation to categorize "horsemanship" under Travel, but if you read the description of that skill it really has little to do with fighting from horseback. I'd suggest dropping this specific rule; Battle should be sufficient on its own.

~ May attack any combat stance, including Rearward.

Adversaries don't have Stances, so this part would not be applicable to heroes.

~ If NPC's, may convert hate points into combat advantage dice as needed.

That seems a little weird to me. Why would you suddenly get to make this conversion simply because you are fighting from horseback? I could see it as a special ability that some adversaries have, but not as a general ability that anybody gets by jumping on a horse.

~ Attacks, using spears, pikes, or other polearms, against mounted targets or horses have a +1 skill bonus.

Does that mean skill is increased by one level, or you add +1 to the die roll? If the former it feels too strong, if the latter it feels too weak.

~ If any roll of Sauron by either the enemy or the companion, then the horse is hit. Conduct a free attack on the horse:
Endurance 12, Parry 5. Armor 1d for riding horses or ponies, and 2d for war horses.

So there's a 1/12 chance of the rider hitting his own horse? That seems improbably high. Conversely, all automatic hits by the enemy are instead hits on the horse? What if the enemy doesn't want to hit the horse? Seems odd that an automatic success instead becomes a "wrong target" success.

My instinct is that accidental hits on a horse, despite the possible realism, wander a bit too far into the "simulationist" realm for the spirit of TOR. In fact, I'd remove intentional attacks on mounts as well, or at least don't bother tracking endurance and wounds and such. Something like, "If you target the mount instead, roll something; if successful, the opponent must make some other roll or get dismounted." Hound of Mirkwood might be the right model here.

I might end up drawing mode heavily on he hounds of Mirkwood indeed. However, to ratify a lack of clarity on my part:
To actively dismount or untangle is an action. If the mount flees, the player is basically bucked, so in THAT case, it is automatic.

One reason I included travel as such is my homebrew Rohan culture, which grants bonuses to travel while on horseback. However, I certainly see your point, and will likely end up amending the culture slightly.

The part with rearward would specifically affect the players when the enemies are attacking, since the mounted rules would apply to both.

The part of hate points, in my mind, represents the enemies checking their mounts and ramping up for another charge. Basically, precisely the advantage given by a cavalry charge. I might end up amending that part slightly, but I might also keep it.

I had intended to add one due to the roll, but you're right, that does seem overpowered. Maybe a static +2 to the value of the roll?

And finally, the idea with Sauron is that on an eye, NOT ONLY is the target hit BUT ALSO the mount is hit. Basically, the weapon cleaved through not only the rider but the mount as well. In retrospect, I agree that it's too weird for that to happen when the PLAYER rolls an eye. Instead, I'll add this line: the same effect occurres against the player's target when the player rolls a Gandalf rune and is attacking (if the target is mounted).

Comments? Thanks in advance.