forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

So, I don't know what it is about TOR that inspires me to make addons for it, but unlike other rpgs, I really enjoy creating new material for it.

Right now I'm working on a bit more detailed rules for horses and ponies, and even how to use them in combat.

Here are some ideas I've come up with so far, and I was hoping people here on the forum could pitch in with ideas:

-Horses and ponies like these are better and more personal than your common pack horse or mount. They are therefore obtained as Virtues.

-There are specific mounts for each culture (yes, even Dwarves), and they are named for where they're from, just like real horses and ponies (for example the Hobbit's "Shire" or Elven "Greenwood")

-In combat, mounts are not seperate "characters" but the rules are more like the Woodmen's Hound.

-There are four different categories of mounts, and this difference plays into both combat and travel. Each type is also more effective in once Stance than the others, and a rider mounted on a horse in the right Stance can have the mount use a special action (which depends on the mount). Destriers are large and powerful warhorses. They are most effective in Forward Stance, where they can bite, kick and trample foes. The Courser is more of an all-pupose horse, good for travel and capable in combat, as long as it is ridden in an Open Stance. The Palfrey is not a horse meant for combat, and is best ridden in Defensive Stance. Finally, bringing a Pony to battle is not very wise, and it's best to keep it in Rearward stance.

-Each mount is also affected by the Calling of the character who obtained it. An Elven Warden's Greenwood Courser behaves differently than the Scholar Hobbit's Shire Pony.

-Mounts can be improved, or trained, with xp, just like the Woodmen's Hound. Abilities are based on Culture, Calling and the type of mount it is.

-Mounts can be Wounded in combat, but as they are obtained as Virtues, they can never be lost. When Wounded, they are out of the Adventure Phase (they find their way home, just like Bill the Pony).

So, that's what I have so far. I'm basically brainstorming at this stage, and I'm going to streamline it later. For instance, I'm not sure if I should keep the different horse types, but rather incorporate this into culture (for example, every Greenwood horse is light and quick and handles forests better than other horses and every Shire mount is actually a Pony and so on). And what should I do with Beorning horses. Do they even ride horses?

Edit: Think I'm going to remove the extra layer that comes from Calling, as it complicates things.

Eirik

Note that horses will not fight unless trained to do so. I find the idea of a dwarf riding a pony into battle to be rather absurd. These should only be available to those cultures that train warhorses.

What I'd like to see are horses that get special (non-combat) traits of their own, to give them significance and personality.

Stormcrow wrote:Note that horses will not fight unless trained to do so. I find the idea of a dwarf riding a pony into battle to be rather absurd. These should only be available to those cultures that train warhorses.

What I'd like to see are horses that get special (non-combat) traits of their own, to give them significance and personality.

Yes, the idea is that horses will get at least as much details for out-of-combat use than in combat. However, I do not think that it should be limited to specific cultures. These horses are exceptional, and as such, gained as Virtues. They are not your common horse or pony. Exceptional horses to exceptional people (which the characters really are).

That said, the dwarf riding a pony won't be charging into Forward Stance if he values his life.

-Eirik

Ferretz wrote:

Stormcrow wrote:Note that horses will not fight unless trained to do so. I find the idea of a dwarf riding a pony into battle to be rather absurd. These should only be available to those cultures that train warhorses.

What I'd like to see are horses that get special (non-combat) traits of their own, to give them significance and personality.

Yes, the idea is that horses will get at least as much details for out-of-combat use than in combat. However, I do not think that it should be limited to specific cultures. These horses are exceptional, and as such, gained as Virtues. They are not your common horse or pony. Exceptional horses to exceptional people (which the characters really are).

That said, the dwarf riding a pony won't be charging into Forward Stance if he values his life.

-Eirik

Hi Erik

I'd be inclined to shy away from them as rewards or virtues...there are just too many scenarios where a horse is useless. If you want to give them something special, why not tie it to standing. High standing characters would attract followers and admirers, so why not award them a special horse at a standing choosing of your choice. Maybe a standing 6 character would be able to claim an eagle as his mount. Though obviously he wouldnt adventure with him, just call upon him in dire straits.

I would offer this as a freebie and give the horse a minor power...perhaps an attribute bonus to skill checks to ride it or perhaps even the ability to attack foes in the rearward rank. I haven't really thought this through...just an alternative idea.

Well, the horse is supposed to be a companion to the character, so to speak, much like the Woodmen's Hound. Horses like these are more like Shadowfax and Asfaloth.

But, Virtue or Standing.. I'll handle that at later. Currently I'm working on how the horses should work in the rules.

I am thinking that I should either make one horse for each Culture, or make it a general Virtue, letting a the player choose if it's a Destrier, Courser, Palfrey or Pony, regardless of Culture.

Each horse has, as mentioned, a "favoured" Stance. In this Stance, riding the horse opens a new action. Also, horses can be used to charge the enemy (yes, even Ponies can charge). This might work simply as an Opening Volley with melee weapons. Destriers get a bonus when charging, Palfreys have a penalty, and Ponies have an even larger penalty. Still, it's one way to get into close combat quickly.

E.

I've begun to write up our group's rules for mounts (yes, wargs are included). You can find the document at this link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CMs ... 3IfEY/edit#

So far, it goes like this:
1. Horses and ponies are bought with silver and gold (aka Treasure Points)
2. It takes one Fellowship Phase to ownership of a horse or pony (as it includes arranging housing, feed, gear etc.)
3. There is a list of "common mounts" that's available for all Cultures
4. Also, there's a list of "cultural mounts" that requires Standing in a certain Culture to acquire
5. Each common mount has two Distinctive Features, and cultural mounts have three. Not sure exactly how these will work yet.

Anyway, constructive ideas and feedback are always welcome.

-Eirik

Ferretz

I will have a detailed read of your ideas and come back to you with some comments, but my initial reaction:

Have you read earlier discussions about this re Mounted Combat & fan versions of the Rohirrim (by Halbarad & others)? I seem to recall agreeing that horses should be treated as rewards (because they are granted usually on a cultural basis. IMHO a PC who wants to buy a warhorse ( as against getting it as a reward) should have to pay through the nose for it!

However, from an adversarial POV if I am facing a mounted enemy odds are I am targeting his horse first (kill two birds with one stone). This was why pikes were so effective against cavalry.....

Robin S.

I did consider making mounts a Reward at first, but it didn't sit well with my group. Horses are expensive, yes, but they are available if you have they money.

When getting a horse or pony with these rules, you pay for it with Treasure Points (or gold, if you use the more detailed rules from the Lake-town booklet). Indeed, in that booklet, there is a price list that covers ponies, horses and even warhorses, so I based my prices on that.

But, being used to horses myself, and having a friend who's into jousting (yes, with lance and plate mail and everything) I really wanted to have the option to train the horse. When a rider first get a horse, the horse is in many ways a blank canvas. It has it's personality quirks and temperaments, and some breeds are more useful for some tasks than others. But it takes time and effort to to train it, and I treated this as a Fellowship Undertaking.

Another reason that horse should not be treated as a Reward or a Virtue, is that it can be lost, and it can be given away. The horse is not an entity in itself, with it's own Endurance etc, but it can be Wounded, and if Wounds are not treated, it can die. However, like the Hound of Mirkwood for the Woodmen, the horse can not be attacked by enemies. It's hit if you roll an Eye of Sauron on a Protection Test. That goes for Enemies also (I'm going to cover rule for Wargs later), but they go down on one Wound.

Also, in medieval times, it was considered dishonourable to attack an the horse of an enemy. Of course, this didn't stop many footmen from doing it, but remember, a warhorse was a very strong and powerful animal, often armoured and very expensive. But in The One Ring, this really doesn't apply very often. Most enemies facing the characters are nasty basterds who would gladly bring the horse home for dinner, preferably without having to carry it)



-Eirik

I would argue that if you are using wargs as mounts the only difference would be the possibility of the orc dieing or being pinned underneath the warg when the warg is killed.

I'll include wargs at some point, but those rules won't be so similar to the rules for characters using horses. However, I will consentrate on making the rules for horses playable first. Going to test them next week.

E.