Topic: Mounted combat: Any requirements regarding Riding skill

[Ecthelion]

Hi,

after taking a look at the HARP rules and the Mounted Combat description I wondered whether there are any requirements concerning the appropriate Riding skill, i.e. if a character wants to develop 10 ranks in Mounted Combat (from horseback), must he develop Riding (horses) to a given level, e.g. at least 5 ranks or also 10 ranks? I found no reference to this in the rules. Of course it makes little to no sense to have a rider that has developed 20 ranks in Mounted Combat, to have no penalty when fighting from horseback, but has no ranks in riding his mount, but the question is what minimum requirements do the rules define?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

No, there is no requirement that says a character must have at least xx ranks of riding in order to have xx ranks of Mounted Combat.

However, having said that, Mounted Combat only related to your OB while on a mount, it has absolutely nothing to do with controlling your mount or riding in an of itself. It is pretty much presumed that a person with this style will have at least some skill in Riding, at least enough to control their mount effectively.

[jurasketu]

Ecthelion-

I think it is 'balanced' by the fact that anyone who wants to fight on horseback will need to be able to make a maneuver roll or three in a combat situation. Controlling a horse in a combat situation should demand use of the riding skill.

I do a lot of mounted combats and I require riding skill checks for a number of reasons. Mounted combatants have to wheel the mount around after charges and to change position. Difficult terrain poses a number of challenges...

So sensible characters learn quickly that a high riding skill is very important or they'll find themselves out of position and unable to use that Mounted OB regardless of skill.

I'm not sure it is covered by the basic rules, but I also require characters to use warhorses for all mounted combat. Horses untrained for combat would panic and not remain steady.

Robin

[Ecthelion]

Ecthelion-

I think it is 'balanced' by the fact that anyone who wants to fight on horseback will need to be able to make a maneuver roll or three in a combat situation. Controlling a horse in a combat situation should demand use of the riding skill.

I do a lot of mounted combats and I require riding skill checks for a number of reasons. Mounted combatants have to wheel the mount around after charges and to change position. Difficult terrain poses a number of challenges...

So sensible characters learn quickly that a high riding skill is very important or they'll find themselves out of position and unable to use that Mounted OB regardless of skill.

Of course as a GM I can "balance" this out. But IMO the basic rules do not have this requirement of additional Riding maneuvers during a combat situation. And I also don't want to have too much dice rolling. But it's probably indeed best to require at least some maneuvers, e.g. when trying to move to a new opponent or so. Thanks for the suggestion.

I'm not sure it is covered by the basic rules, but I also require characters to use warhorses for all mounted combat. Horses untrained for combat would panic and not remain steady.

No, the rules don't require this, and I think I won't either.

[Marc R]

A non warhorse would likely do OK in a fight, but if it's struck in combat or something like that, be more likely to decide to balk or run. In game terms, I'd say that a warhorse, on average, should have higher resistance. . .i.e. Will and Stamina, than a riding horse. (Likely higher hits, and some decent attacks of it's own also).

So if the horse needs to make a morale check due to a blast of fire say, the warhorse is more likely to make the Will check with a higher bonus and not bolt than the riding horse. The rider would only need to make a control check if the horse tries to run, if it makes the will check, they can keep fighting without having to pause to control their mount.

Beyond that, for any type of horse, I'd treat training level as a riding bonus/malus, almost like an item. i.e.:

the player gets a just broken to the saddle wild horse, it's -25 to all riding checks, as it's not really tame, hates being ridden, and has urges to run away.

vs

a superbly trained riding horse with a very steady and calm personality is generally obedient and hard to spook, so offers a +25 to riding checks.

Needless to say, the latter horse would cost a lot more. . .and a well trained, "bonus" warhorse with the higher resistance levels would be VERY expensive.

[Ecthelion]

A non warhorse would likely do OK in a fight, but if it's struck in combat or something like that, be more likely to decide to balk or run. In game terms, I'd say that a warhorse, on average, should have higher resistance. . .i.e. Will and Stamina, than a riding horse. (Likely higher hits, and some decent attacks of it's own also).

And that's exactly how it is done in HARP, see. pg. 157 ("Mounts" section) of the HARP core rulebook, and how we will use it.