Mounted combat - taking cover behind your mount

[RangerWickett]

Last night we had a ridiculous battle in the Red Hand of Doom adventure. I'm playing a mounted ranger archer, and the party's barbarian is also mounted, and we ended up battling a bunch of hobgoblins in an enclosed space. The hobgoblins were aided by worg-riding goblins.

By the wording of the Ride skill:

You can react instantly to drop down and hang alongside your mount, using it as cover. You can’t attack or cast spells while using your mount as cover. If you fail your Ride check, you don’t get the cover benefit. This usage does not take an action. DC 15.

I always succeed this check. So did the goblins. The barbarian succeeded about 80% of the time. The DM previously did not use the 'striking cover' rules, so basically I always had a +4 cover bonus to AC, with no penalty. It got to be a little ridiculous, because the rule does not say how long you retain the 'not able to attack or cast spells' effect. Is it during your next turn? Is it just until you start your next turn (hardly a penalty)?

Was there a Rules of the Game article on mounts that covered this? Does anyone know? Otherwise, the DM (and I support this) is going to say you can spend your turn taking cover with your mount, as a standard action.

 

[RangerWickett]

Ah, found it:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050125a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050201a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050208a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050215a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050222a

It says that we were using the rule right, but I think always being able to have cover is pretty powerful.

To be fair, though, we ended up also fighting a bugbear sorcerer with a 26 AC (+3 natural, +1 Dex, +4 shield, +4 mage armor, +4 cover), since apparently a boulder in a square allows you to take cover from all foes, even when surrounded on three sides and with your back to a wall.

 

[Jhulae]

Ah, found it:

<snipped the URLs>

It says that we were using the rule right, but I think always being able to have cover is pretty powerful.

To be fair, though, we ended up also fighting a bugbear sorcerer with a 26 AC (+3 natural, +1 Dex, +4 shield, +4 mage armor, +4 cover), since apparently a boulder in a square allows you to take cover from all foes, even when surrounded on three sides and with your back to a wall.

Well, it's powerful until the enemy kills your mount. Then you have no mount and no cover.

Honestly, after a round or two of them ducking, mounts would have become the targets. And besides, it's harder for the goblins to escape when they don't have a mount because they're slower.

 

[RangerWickett]

Well, it's powerful until the enemy kills your mount. Then you have no mount and no cover.

Honestly, after a round or two of them ducking, mounts would have become the targets. And besides, it's harder for the goblins to escape when they don't have a mount because they're slower.

Except that the 3rd level goblin fighters with their 16 Dexterity, 6 ranks in Ride, +2 synergy bonus from Handle Animal, and +4 racial bonus to Ride have a +15 Ride check modifier, which, when coupled with Mounted Combat, makes the worgs exceedingly hard to hit.

We ended up actually having a chase sequence, where the goblin I had reduced to 4 hit points tried to ride off, and I pursued. Do you know how hard it is to stop a fleeing opponent? He always took corners so I could never charge. The goblin's AC with cover and total defense was 27, and coupled with the penalty from shooting arrows while on a double-moving horse, I managed to never hit the guy over four rounds of pursuit. The only licks I got in was when my horse rode up beside the worg and got an attack of opportunity as the thing fled.

Then the worg ran into the woods, where its smaller size meant it could outmaneuver me and get distance. That's when the NPC popped off two natural 20s from 200 ft. away and killed the rider.

I'm a 5th level ranger. My mount did more damage in that combat than I did, by far.

 

[Jhulae]

Except that the 3rd level goblin fighters with their 16 Dexterity, 6 ranks in Ride, +2 synergy bonus from Handle Animal, and +4 racial bonus to Ride have a +15 Ride check modifier, which, when coupled with Mounted Combat, makes the worgs exceedingly hard to hit.

We ended up actually having a chase sequence, where the goblin I had reduced to 4 hit points tried to ride off, and I pursued. Do you know how hard it is to stop a fleeing opponent? He always took corners so I could never charge. The goblin's AC with cover and total defense was 27, and coupled with the penalty from shooting arrows while on a double-moving horse, I managed to never hit the guy over four rounds of pursuit. The only licks I got in was when my horse rode up beside the worg and got an attack of opportunity as the thing fled.

Then the worg ran into the woods, where its smaller size meant it could outmaneuver me and get distance. That's when the NPC popped off two natural 20s from 200 ft. away and killed the rider.

I'm a 5th level ranger. My mount did more damage in that combat than I did, by far.

Mounted combat only allows you to substitute a ride check in place of AC for *one* attack, and that's why you use multiple attacks or attackers against a mount. (It's a DC 10 ride check to have your mount attack along with you, if nothing else.) That's not taking into account spells, actually, which can damage a mount without needing to make any rolls (and, if it's an area of effect spell, it'll hit the rider, too).

Of course, the up side, also, is that if they're busy ducking behind their mounts all the time, they're not attacking you... eventually they'll end up losing by attrition, if just because some of your attacks are bount to hit, while they're not making any.

 

[Stalker0]

At low levels, mounts are very powerful additions. But that's very realistic, unless you had army units designed to take on mounted troops (pikemen for example), mounted troops were defestating to infantry. I say enjoy it while you can, mounted combat tends to go by the wayside at higher levels...mounts die too easily, and flying becomes more commonplace.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

RW, I have always HRd that recovering from the 'take cover' action is part of a move action. The idea of a 'free' +4 to AC for basically the entire encounter seems just weird to me.

However, its very cool to hear of a mounted combat encounter that used the rules for mounted combat

For the chase, you probably would have been better off with the 'Hot Pursuit' rules instead of doing 'normal' combat rounds..

 

[RangerWickett]

However, when next level I take the Beastmaster prestige class and end up with an animal companion equivalent to a 6th level druid, my horse gains 4 HD, +2 Str, and +4 AC.

It will have +10/+10/+5 for its attacks, dealing d6+5/d6+5/d4+2. AC 22 with barding, and 60 HP. It will be awesome.

My eventual plan is to locate some manner of large flying critter I can take as a mount, since we're playing The Red Hand of Doom, and I fully expect to run afoul of dragons.

 

[RangerWickett]

I've been looking into things, and it appears that officially druids and rangers can't have warhorses as animal companions, just normal horses.

Also, we seem to have a short timetable for this campaign, so I doubt that even if I got a new animal companion that I would have time to train it. I don't think dire bats come pre-trained for carrying an archer into battle, as cool as that would be.

 

[PallidPatience]

You may not be able to take a warhorse, but you can train a horse to fight in combat.