Help me argue with my DM re: mounted combat

[Shining Wrath]

I argued that a Knight with a lance atop a large mount is considered to occupy the same space as the mount - and therefore, the lance threatens the squares adjacent to the mount, because if someone is standing on the right side of the mount, a Knight in the squares on the left side of the mount is able to threaten those squares.

Alas, I was overruled. The lance threatens a ring around the mount but not the adjacent squares. This leads to the suboptimal condition where a mounted Knight may be attacked from 12 squares rather than the usual 8.

Is there a published source, I ask hopefully of the assembled brilliance that is the Playground, which supports my thesis?

[Pancritic]

I argued that a Knight with a lance atop a large mount is considered to occupy the same space as the mount - and therefore, the lance threatens the squares adjacent to the mount, because if someone is standing on the right side of the mount, a Knight in the squares on the left side of the mount is able to threaten those squares.

Alas, I was overruled. The lance threatens a ring around the mount but not the adjacent squares. This leads to the suboptimal condition where a mounted Knight may be attacked from 12 squares rather than the usual 8.

Is there a published source, I ask hopefully of the assembled brilliance that is the Playground, which supports my thesis?Doubtful, as you can't strike at adjacent squares with a lance.
Lance

A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. It has reach, so you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it, but you can’t use it against an adjacent foe.

While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand. Whether or not you share your space with your mount (which you do, and should) or wield your lance one- or two-handed has no bearing on the fact that you can't use it to strike at an opponent in an adjacent square.

[Gwendol]

My question is, why is there anyone adjacent to your mount? You have reach, and being a knight, makes it hard to move within your threatened area without provoking AoO's. My suggestion is to buy spiked gauntlets ASAP to threaten also the squares around you.

[Darrin]

Is there a published source, I ask hopefully of the assembled brilliance that is the Playground, which supports my thesis?

Yes, but only in so much as the RAW on Mounted Combat was never adequately playtested and doesn't work as written. Case in point: A knight on a horse charging a medium target with a lance cannot actually attack.

The charging rules state that the mount must charge to the nearest square to attack. The mounted combat rules state that the knight must wait until his mount reaches the target, and then may make a single melee attack. But he can't because the lance is a reach weapon and his target is now within 5'.

Another example: the Ride-By Attack feat states that you may continue charging "in a straight line"... however, the charge action states your mount must charge to the nearest square, which generally means your opponent is now directly in front of your charge, preventing you from moving forward. The charge rules also state that if a creature is blocking your path, you cannot declare the charge in the first place.

Show your DM these two examples and explain to him he needs to adjust the mounted combat rules with a couple house rules. To do anything less is to assert the Battle of Hastings was a loss for the Normans*, and we should all be speaking... Anglo-Saxon, I guess?

Some possible rules fixes:

1) As you have already suggested, allow the lance to attack adjacent targets.

2) Allow the rider to pick which square he occupies on the horse. This allows him to pick one of the "rear" squares, which puts his target within reach of the lance.

3) Direct your mount to charge (usually a free or move action), and then use your standard action to "ready" a lance attack when your target is within reach but before the mount gets there.

4) To fix Ride-By Attack, just allow the mount to charge to the nearest square that allows the rider to attack and still allows the mount to continue moving in a straight line. (Note that your mount may still not be allowed to attack, as they can only make an attack once they've reached the end of their charge.)

(* = It may have been the stirrup, not the mounted lance, that handed victory to the Normans. When Harold's troops broke ranks to pursue the retreating Normans, the Normans were able to stand up in their saddles and stab down at *adjacent* footsoldiers, which inflicted too many casualties for Harold to put a decent shield wall back together.)

[Gwendol]

Right. Also, the whole your mount does all the moving, yet you can't full attack nonsense. I mean, if a barbarian can pounce...

So, as Darrin rightly pointed out, you can't actually use the rules for mounted combat without houserules. Start there and work your way towards a mutual agreement.

[Shining Wrath]

Thanks to all.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Darrin
...and we should all be speaking... Anglo-Saxon, I guess?

Just to follow up on this, we are speaking Anglo-Saxon, or rather its descendant. The Normans acquired French during their time in Normandy, and brought it with them to England, but it remained the language of the rulers rather than the ruled.

Quite a few French terms entered the language following the Conquest, especially related to the law and high living, but the basic Anglo-Saxon vocabulary remains the core of the English language.

[Shining Wrath]

Just to follow up on this, we are speaking Anglo-Saxon, or rather its descendant. The Normans acquired French during their time in Normandy, and brought it with them to England, but it remained the language of the rulers rather than the ruled.

Quite a few French terms entered the language following the Conquest, especially related to the law and high living, but the basic Anglo-Saxon vocabulary remains the core of the English language.

For example, almost every word in Churchill's "We shall fight them on the beaches" speech has AS roots.

[Palanan]

Exactly. Anglo-Saxon isn't just the grammatical core of modern English, it's the deep emotional core as well.

[Rhynn]

Re: Ride-By Attack, you'd generally want to line up your charge so that you're going to be charging past your opponent anyway. (If it weren't for the fact that you are forced to charge into a distance too close to attack with a lance.) If you're in a straight line to the square to your right from the target, you can charge so that you'll pass through that square. The square to your left in front of the target is actually slightly further away (because of diagonal movement rules).

Illustration:



::||:
:X||:
::||:
::||:
::||:
::||:
::HH:
::HH:


: = empty square
X = target
H = mounted knight
| = squares moved through

There's no square nearer to the opponent than the ones you're passing through. You won't need to occupy the square actually in front of the opponent at any time. (You might think you'd get to attack and trample anyone in your way, but I guess not...)


But a cogent explanation of how messed up mounted combat is, nonetheless.

[HalfQuart]

My guess is that RAI is just what your DM ruled.. I would think the default scenario the writers envisioned was a medium creature riding a large mount. Since the lance was given reach without being able to attack adjacent squares, that only really makes sense if you can't shift your position to a different square in the mount's space.

That said, this Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050125a) article interprets it your way:

A mount and rider share the same space on the battlefield.

For all game purposes, you and your mount function as a single unit on the battlefield. Your mount continues to use its own space and reach while carrying you. You effectively use your mount's space and your own reach (or whatever extended reach your weapon gives you) while mounted. While you're mounted, any attack that can reach a square in the space you and your mount jointly occupy can affect you or your mount (it doesn't make a difference which square). Likewise, you measure your reach for your melee attacks and the range for your ranged attacks from any square you and your mount jointly occupy
I do think ruling it this way is more consistent with other rules about large creatures, and so I'd probably advocate interpreting it that way too, even if it might go against RAI.

[Gwendol]

Those articles actually acknowledged the rules for mounted combat are not consistent and did somethings (like the quoted part above) to adress them.

[ArcturusV]

Huh... you know, I thought Horses were excepted on the Large size standards. Instead of being 2 x 2 squares, they were 2 x 1. I know it was that way in older editions, and I just never really bothered to change it because, well, it kinda makes sense. They're long but skinny. Compared to an Ogre which looks like a hulking block mass of ugly and makes sense taking up 4 squares. And I just presumed the "exception" remained without ever really looking for it.

And considering the rider sitting "on the line" of 2 squares kinda makes more sense for him counting as being in each square rather than sitting at 4 corners and counting as all four. Least to me.

[Worira]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure horses were 2x1 as late as 3.0e.

[Shining Wrath]

Huh... you know, I thought Horses were excepted on the Large size standards. Instead of being 2 x 2 squares, they were 2 x 1. I know it was that way in older editions, and I just never really bothered to change it because, well, it kinda makes sense. They're long but skinny. Compared to an Ogre which looks like a hulking block mass of ugly and makes sense taking up 4 squares. And I just presumed the "exception" remained without ever really looking for it.

And considering the rider sitting "on the line" of 2 squares kinda makes more sense for him counting as being in each square rather than sitting at 4 corners and counting as all four. Least to me.

Character in question is riding a Magebred Grizzly Bear, though. Stated weight is 2000 pounds.

[ArcturusV]

Still grizzlies are kinda "taller" than they are "Fatter" so you'd think similar logic should apply?

But even so, sorry for presuming and mistaking. Just wanted to be helpful and point out that it may reduce your problem by 2 spaces.

Of course since it is a bear I suppose you can still "Threaten" all the nearby squares with a bear's bite/claw attacks rather than merely be limited to your lance.