Is Ride really necessary?

[scarmiglionne4]

Couldn't Ride just be part of Handle Animal? Does anyone ever have to make Ride checks?

[ArcturusV]

Constantly. Anytime I make a mounted character/NPC, some DM/Player decides they are going to be smart by sniping out the mount. Thus a Ride Check to knock up the AC and say "Lol, no!" becomes important.

Remember, it's a lot easier to pump up a Skill Check than it is to pump up AC. So most players don't really think of optimizing To Hit as much, because AC doesn't scale right. But a skill check can keep up, in my experience, and render your mount untouchable.

[scarmiglionne4]

Constantly. Anytime I make a mounted character/NPC, some DM/Player decides they are going to be smart by sniping out the mount. Thus a Ride Check to knock up the AC and say "Lol, no!" becomes important.

Remember, it's a lot easier to pump up a Skill Check than it is to pump up AC. So most players don't really think of optimizing To Hit as much, because AC doesn't scale right. But a skill check can keep up, in my experience, and render your mount untouchable.

How does that work, making a Ride check to increase the mount's AC?

[Andezzar]

Constantly. Anytime I make a mounted character/NPC, some DM/Player decides they are going to be smart by sniping out the mount. Thus a Ride Check to knock up the AC and say "Lol, no!" becomes important. Only if you have Mounted Combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#mountedCombat).

[Doug Lampert]

How does that work, making a Ride check to increase the mount's AC?

From the SRD section on Feats:

Mounted Combat [General]
Prerequisite
Ride 1 rank.

Benefit
Once per round when your mount is hit in combat, you may attempt a Ride check (as a reaction) to negate the hit. The hit is negated if your Ride check result is greater than the opponent’s attack roll. (Essentially, the Ride check result becomes the mount’s Armor Class if it’s higher than the mount’s regular AC.)

Special
A fighter may select Mounted Combat as one of his fighter bonus feats.

[Chromascope3D]

Mounted Combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#mountedCombat), basically the requirement for any sort of encounter.

Assuming you want your mount to stand any reasonable chance of not dying every single encounter, of course. :smalltongue:

EDIT: Double Ninja'd. :smallsigh:

[KillianHawkeye]

Lots of characters will use Ride, but only a Druid or a Ranger ever really needs Handle Animal.

[Jeff the Green]

Couldn't Ride just be part of Handle Animal?

From a verisimilitude standpoint, the two are very different. Ride is about having the skill and instincts (Dexterity) to know how to handle a trained mount in combat. Your connection with the animal is helpful but not necessary, so there's a synergy bonus from Handle Animal. Handle Animal is convincing an animal to do something. The two have very little to do with each other.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Couldn't Ride just be part of Handle Animal?
From a simulationist perspective? Arguably not. From a gamist perspective? Absolutely.

[Spuddles]

From a verisimilitude standpoint, the two are very different. Ride is about having the skill and instincts (Dexterity) to know how to handle a trained mount in combat. Your connection with the animal is helpful but not necessary, so there's a synergy bonus from Handle Animal. Handle Animal is convincing an animal to do something. The two have very little to do with each other.

Absolutely true. There are a great many really good riders out there that have no understanding of horse behavior and make absolutely horrible trainers.

[Jeff the Green]

Absolutely true. There are a great many really good riders out there that have no understanding of horse behavior and make absolutely horrible trainers.

And before I took riding lessons, I could calm down a dog (or horse or cat) reasonably well, and train them to come/sit/stay, but would have fallen off at a canter.

[ericgrau]

When I made a simplified skill list I found I had to split ride half into handle animal and half into acrobatics, because half of the uses don't make sense for handle animal. That's also why ride is dex based instead of cha based.

You do lose some making-sense if you try to merge them, how much that matters to you is another thing.

[Ravens_cry]

Sorry, but no. Handle Animal is a Charisma based skill, while much of Ride does not make sense for Charisma to influence it in my opinion.

[Malrone]

I believe there was even a character trait that increased Ride at the cost of Handle Animal. "Mounts are just that- Nothing more," being the mentality there.

Ride isn't a necessary skill to take as most any character (but can be a situational killer, like Swim). Ride as a mechanic is, ultimately, appropriate.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Couldn't the enemy just say their attacking the PC though and not the mount, making the ride's AC bonus kind of useless?

As for ride with handle animal.
From a gaming sense, yes it would be nice to mix the two.
Like it would be nice to mix search, spot and listen together.

But realistically you can be very good at one but terrible in the other so it makes sense why they're different.

[ArcturusV]

True. But the thing is, people go for the Mounts. Because unless you are optimizing by some margin, your mount probably has only 1/4th the HP of you. If you DO have a mount, it means you probably sank 1/5th to 1/2 your feats into it, meaning you are much less effective the moment your mount is taken out (Not to mention falling damage on top of it just for extra insult).

So people shoot the mount. It's the "Easy" target. The reason people say mounted combat sucks is because the mounts are so fragile. Even a Paladin's mount is pretty fragile HP wise. Though sharing saving throws and Evasion helps offset a little.

And because people know the mount is low HP, the Ride check to jack up the AC becomes important. Why attack a rider who has 4 times the HP when you can hit him for 1/4 and remove most of his combat capability?

[Spuddles]

Couldn't the enemy just say their attacking the PC though and not the mount, making the ride's AC bonus kind of useless?

As for ride with handle animal.
From a gaming sense, yes it would be nice to mix the two.
Like it would be nice to mix search, spot and listen together.

But realistically you can be very good at one but terrible in the other so it makes sense why they're different.

Unless you're using a rather specific build with mount or animal companion as a class feature, most of the time, your mount will have bad AC and, having fewer and smaller HD than you, poor HP. Raising either of those costs GP, which means the rider ultimately has fewer resources to invest in THEIR AC.

Usually, when faced with a mounted character, targeting the mount is a quick way to disable a bundle of mounted feats, double or triple charge damage, and the rider's mobility. Being able to make a ride check vs. finger of death or a giant's power attack is prett handy.

At least, that's the reasoning behind it. Mounted Combat is an alright feat. Leadership for a cohort is probably the best way to do it. A mount with monk levels is actually really solid. Monk's are great at defense, and after burning 4 feats to play a mounted character, wouldnt you rather have horsey live?

[Malak'ai]

Yes it is.
I'm pretty good with animals, but there is no way in hell I'd even be able mount a horse properly if I tried.

They are two different skill sets. One is a bond/emotional/personality trait, the other is a physical ability.

In regards to using Ride to up your mounts AC... Barding can only do so much!

[Gwazi Magnum]

True. But the thing is, people go for the Mounts. Because unless you are optimizing by some margin, your mount probably has only 1/4th the HP of you. If you DO have a mount, it means you probably sank 1/5th to 1/2 your feats into it, meaning you are much less effective the moment your mount is taken out (Not to mention falling damage on top of it just for extra insult).

So people shoot the mount. It's the "Easy" target. The reason people say mounted combat sucks is because the mounts are so fragile. Even a Paladin's mount is pretty fragile HP wise. Though sharing saving throws and Evasion helps offset a little.

And because people know the mount is low HP, the Ride check to jack up the AC becomes important. Why attack a rider who has 4 times the HP when you can hit him for 1/4 and remove most of his combat capability?


Unless you're using a rather specific build with mount or animal companion as a class feature, most of the time, your mount will have bad AC and, having fewer and smaller HD than you, poor HP. Raising either of those costs GP, which means the rider ultimately has fewer resources to invest in THEIR AC.

Usually, when faced with a mounted character, targeting the mount is a quick way to disable a bundle of mounted feats, double or triple charge damage, and the rider's mobility. Being able to make a ride check vs. finger of death or a giant's power attack is prett handy.

At least, that's the reasoning behind it. Mounted Combat is an alright feat. Leadership for a cohort is probably the best way to do it. A mount with monk levels is actually really solid. Monk's are great at defense, and after burning 4 feats to play a mounted character, wouldnt you rather have horsey live?

Both of you have valid points.

I'm not use to mounted characters yet so this stuff didn't occur to me.
A mounted character would be fun to play some time, but sadly it's unlikely due to heavy feat investment and how many situations I'd be without my mount.

[Xefas]

The skills in 3.5 D&D are already so abstracted and condensed that I don't think it would hurt, really.

I mean, Handle Animal covers your ability to understand, domesticate, and teach dogs, horses, lions, and dragonblooded ninja landsharks from beyond the veil of this world. Once you've gone this abstracted, I don't think anyone would notice if characters who could teach horses also happened to be good at riding them. It's different in real life, sure, but in real life, someone's skill at training dogs wouldn't extend to dragonblooded ninja landsharks from beyond the veil of this world. It's abstraction, and it's a part of every game.

[TuggyNE]

The skills in 3.5 D&D are already so abstracted and condensed that I don't think it would hurt, really.

I mean, Handle Animal covers your ability to understand, domesticate, and teach dogs, horses, lions, and dragonblooded ninja landsharks from beyond the veil of this world. Once you've gone this abstracted, I don't think anyone would notice if characters who could teach horses also happened to be good at riding them. It's different in real life, sure, but in real life, someone's skill at training dogs wouldn't extend to dragonblooded ninja landsharks from beyond the veil of this world. It's abstraction, and it's a part of every game.

You have a reasonable point, but I counter with two words: Synergy. Bonus.

[Urpriest]

I'm going to second Xefas's point that skills in D&D already aren't especially simulationist (as disorienting as it is seeing Xefas in the 3.5 section rather than Exalted). Pretty much every skill that has multiple uses doesn't make sense from an absolute "people can who are good at x are always good at y" paradigm.

The important point to ask here is whether the archetypes that you want to be good at riding to also be good at handling animals. Since most of said archetypes either interact with at least one particular animal on a regular basis (Druids, Paladins with a Special Mount, other animal-companion-types) and at least occasionally would ride said creature over the course of a story, or would need to train their mount to get any use out of it (Fighter et al) and thus need Handle Animal in order to use Ride, I think it would be perfectly sensible to combine the two skills.

[Pickford]

True. But the thing is, people go for the Mounts. Because unless you are optimizing by some margin, your mount probably has only 1/4th the HP of you. If you DO have a mount, it means you probably sank 1/5th to 1/2 your feats into it, meaning you are much less effective the moment your mount is taken out (Not to mention falling damage on top of it just for extra insult).

So people shoot the mount. It's the "Easy" target. The reason people say mounted combat sucks is because the mounts are so fragile. Even a Paladin's mount is pretty fragile HP wise. Though sharing saving throws and Evasion helps offset a little.

And because people know the mount is low HP, the Ride check to jack up the AC becomes important. Why attack a rider who has 4 times the HP when you can hit him for 1/4 and remove most of his combat capability?

Well, presumably if you've got the ranks in ride to make the AC check you've also got the ranks for Soft Fall to take no damage.

Ride checks are actually pretty important if you're a fighter (since fighting from horseback is basically always better than fighting on foot: bonus to height, extra speed, ability to do full ranged attack while your mount moves, double damage from charging (triple with lance))

[Spuddles]

Both of you have valid points.

I'm not use to mounted characters yet so this stuff didn't occur to me.
A mounted character would be fun to play some time, but sadly it's unlikely due to heavy feat investment and how many situations I'd be without my mount.

Small Strongheart Halfling Fighter 1:
1. Mounted Combat
Strongheart: Wild Cohort (wartrained riding dog)
Fighter: Ride-by Attack

Use lance for dealing double damage.

Second level of fighter get spirited charge for triple lance damage. With, say, 3d6+6 damage (average 16 damage, 14str) on a charge, you've got nearly the same damage output as a raging half orc barbarian, AND you can use a heavy shield for a lot of extra AC.

Mounted characters are like the premier low level martial character, so long as you got that room to charge in.


The skills in 3.5 D&D are already so abstracted and condensed that I don't think it would hurt, really.

I mean, Handle Animal covers your ability to understand, domesticate, and teach dogs, horses, lions, and dragonblooded ninja landsharks from beyond the veil of this world. Once you've gone this abstracted, I don't think anyone would notice if characters who could teach horses also happened to be good at riding them. It's different in real life, sure, but in real life, someone's skill at training dogs wouldn't extend to dragonblooded ninja landsharks from beyond the veil of this world. It's abstraction, and it's a part of every game.

Handle Animal is used on creatures with less than 3 int; ie, "animal" intelligence. Just like diplomacy works on everything from titans to dragons to farmers to mind flayers.

That certainly holds in the real world- training different animals, from birds to lions, is remarkably similar. It doesn't seem very preposterous that teaching a stupid landshark would be terribly different than training a war elephant or dinosaur.

Making a dex check to teach an animal how to guard something, or using charisma to jump off a charging horse doesn't make much sense within even the rudimentary model of D&D. Perhaps using those things because you're so good at them? Sure. But the world's best stunt riders are that good because they are also really, really, really, really ridiculously good looking? I'm not seeing it....

[ericgrau]

True. But the thing is, people go for the Mounts. Because unless you are optimizing by some margin, your mount probably has only 1/4th the HP of you. If you DO have a mount, it means you probably sank 1/5th to 1/2 your feats into it, meaning you are much less effective the moment your mount is taken out (Not to mention falling damage on top of it just for extra insult).

So people shoot the mount. It's the "Easy" target. The reason people say mounted combat sucks is because the mounts are so fragile. Even a Paladin's mount is pretty fragile HP wise. Though sharing saving throws and Evasion helps offset a little.

And because people know the mount is low HP, the Ride check to jack up the AC becomes important. Why attack a rider who has 4 times the HP when you can hit him for 1/4 and remove most of his combat capability?
Eh only if you screw up the build. You don't need a single feat, only ride ranks to get some nice benefits. And then a hit to take out your cheap mount is 1 less hit to you so that's another bonus. Then as you pay more to get more from the mount you better make sure to protect him just as well too or else don't bother trying to get more out of him.

In fact one of the easiest ways to get a mount is to leadership one, and he's about as resilient as another cohort. That doesn't seem that complicated at all to get a tough mount.

[Andezzar]

Eh only if you screw up the build. You don't need a single feat, only ride ranks to get some nice benefits. And then a hit to take out your cheap mount is 1 less hit to you so that's another bonus. Then as you pay more to get more from the mount you better make sure to protect him just as well too or else don't bother trying to get more out of him.

In fact one of the easiest ways to get a mount is to leadership one, and he's about as resilient as another cohort. That doesn't seem that complicated at all to get a tough mount.With only the ride skill (and no feats) you can only do what the ride skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/ride.htm) allows you to do. Most if not all is unnecessary if you do not fight from a mount.

[Malroth]

I can see normal sized humans hiring lv 1 strongheart halfling rangers with skill focus ride, and mounted combat maxed ride, a synergy bonus from handle animal, a masterwork tool for ride to be temporary suits of AC 24 armor by riding on the humans back.

[TuggyNE]

I can see normal sized humans hiring lv 1 strongheart halfling rangers with skill focus ride, and mounted combat maxed ride, a synergy bonus from handle animal, a masterwork tool for ride to be temporary suits of AC 24 armor by riding on the humans back.

They'd have to be level 2 to get synergy bonuses. Also, it's only once per round.

Amusing idea, though.

[Person_Man]

I've been doing this forever, and the more I read threads like this and think about 3.X/PF Skill system, the more I dislike it.

From both a game mechanics and a fluff perspective, it's just a convoluted seething mess. I hope that when 5E finally makes it through the play tests, they stick with the system of everything being resolved by Ability Checks modified by Trait/Feats/Non-Weapon Proficiencies/etc.

I would dramatically prefer having a Riding Trait/Feat that just automatically allowed me to do most mundane Riding tasks (which people without the Ride Trait would have to make a Dex check for), and gave me a flat bonus to Dex for opposed tasks.

[Joe the Rat]

The skills in 3.5 D&D are already so abstracted and condensed that I don't think it would hurt, really.

I mean, Handle Animal covers your ability to understand, domesticate, and teach dogs, horses, lions, and dragonblooded ninja landsharks from beyond the veil of this world. Once you've gone this abstracted, I don't think anyone would notice if characters who could teach horses also happened to be good at riding them. It's different in real life, sure, but in real life, someone's skill at training dogs wouldn't extend to dragonblooded ninja landsharks from beyond the veil of this world. It's abstraction, and it's a part of every game.

So if I take Craft (weapon), my Wizard becomes proficient with wielding swords and dire flails and whatnot? Mechanically, proficiency is a feat, and crafting is a skill, but this is the same sort of generalization. Knowing how to make, manage, or fix something is not the same as being able to use it.

Think of it as Drive (Animal).

Also, there's that whole one-stat-per-skill thing.

[Andezzar]

I hope that when 5E finally makes it through the play tests, they stick with the system of everything being resolved by Ability Checks modified by Trait/Feats/Non-Weapon Proficiencies/etc.
Thery're going back to non-weapon proficiencies? I sure hope they are not doing it like in 2E. A cleric just through logical stat allocation was a better rider than a fighter ever could hope to be even if he put all his non-weapon proficiencies into riding, unless he got similarly high WIS. :smallyuk:

[Doug Lampert]

Both of you have valid points.

I'm not use to mounted characters yet so this stuff didn't occur to me.
A mounted character would be fun to play some time, but sadly it's unlikely due to heavy feat investment and how many situations I'd be without my mount.

Gnome or Halfling, but probably Gnome since you might as well wear heavy armor and Con is always good.

Riding dog can go almost anywhere the party can. You need LESS head clearance than the humans even when mounted and the same space.

Why in the world would there be "many" situations where you don't have your mount?

[Andezzar]

I think he assumed a medium or larger character. Needing four or more squares can be a problem.

Even if the actual space is not a problem, few people will let your horse (or other large animal) into buildings.

[Deox]

Even if the actual space is not a problem, few people will let your horse (or other large animal) into buildings.

Or you can ride a sweet Ashworm so they can't keep you out.

[Andezzar]

Depending on where you are they may. Besides, not everyone wants to resort to chaotic evil behavior.