Skeleton Horses

[Jack Zander]

So I'm playing a necromancer in my group and I bought 4 light horses, slayed them and raised them as skeletons. I doubt their stats will ever come into play (they are simply for having mounts that don't need to rest or get fatigued after 8 hours). However, I'm confused as to how their attacks work. It looks as though a light horse is not proficient with its natural attack. If that's the case, then is the skeleton horse not proficient with its hooves either?

[Starfols]

I believe that's the case. Skeleton says you retain the natural attack, it doesn't say you have to be proficient.

[Zaydos]

It's not a question of proficiency, they're secondary natural weapons as opposed to primary ones. Which is actually slightly worse than non-proficiency (-5 instead of -4 and 1/2 strength to damage).

[Jack Zander]

It's not a question of proficiency, they're secondary natural weapons as opposed to primary ones. Which is actually slightly worse than non-proficiency (-5 instead of -4 and 1/2 strength to damage).

Oh, that's where that extra -1 and half damage were coming from.

I still don't quite understand though. Light horses don't have a primary attack listed.

[Zaydos]

They don't have one. The theory is they aren't really built for combat.

[Jack Zander]

They don't have one. The theory is they aren't really built for combat.

I figured that's what the case was. Like I said, I doubt they'll be used for combat too, but I just wanted to stat them out just in case.

So how do undead mounts work in general? I assume there is no problem riding them into combat if needed. Does the mount have to be a warhorse in order to let you attack from it without a ride check, or does the skeleton's nature of being an emotionless freak of nature allow you to forgo that check?

[Yorrin]

I figured that's what the case was. Like I said, I doubt they'll be used for combat too, but I just wanted to stat them out just in case.

So how do undead mounts work in general? I assume there is no problem riding them into combat if needed. Does the mount have to be a warhorse in order to let you attack from it without a ride check, or does the skeleton's nature of being an emotionless freak of nature allow you to forgo that check?

This isn't actually covered by the rules. As a DM I'd say that you don't need the check because it's a mindless undead under your control. But I can see why someone would disagree with that. So, ask your DM...

[Ernir]

There's nothing (that I know of) in the rules that prevents a skeletal horse from running all day long. It makes trips go by... very quickly. Make sure you have an opinion on that.

[Marnath]

The ride check is only partly to direct the beast, it's also to see if you manage to stay in the saddle, and that's all on you not your horse.

[JoshuaZ]

This isn't actually covered by the rules. As a DM I'd say that you don't need the check because it's a mindless undead under your control. But I can see why someone would disagree with that. So, ask your DM...

There's a section in Libris Mortis that discusses rules for undead mounts in detail. I think making ride checks with undead mounts is discussed in there.

[Greenish]

There's nothing (that I know of) in the rules that prevents a skeletal horse from running all day long. It makes trips go by... very quickly.

Just remember to get a lot of extra padding on that saddle.

[Marnath]

Just remember to get a lot of extra padding on that saddle.

I would think you'd have to make a check versus forced march if you rode all day, because riding is fatiguing.

[Kaww]

That doesn't sound like a good way to travel. First as noted your saddle should be VERY WELL PADDED for this...

Why not buy a wagon and rest while avoiding ride checks and similar problems we DMs enjoy inflicting upon people that figured out how to move whole day without fatigue or move at landspeed of 200ft/round without using higher lvl spells?

P.S. Expect the horses to die (again) and wagon to be blown to smithereens asap.

[herrhauptmann]

That doesn't sound like a good way to travel. First as noted your saddle should be VERY WELL PADDED for this...

Why not buy a wagon and rest while avoiding ride checks and similar problems we DMs enjoy inflicting upon people that figured out how to move whole day without fatigue or move at landspeed of 200ft/round without using higher lvl spells?

P.S. Expect the horses to die (again) and wagon to be blown to smithereens asap.

Yeah, be careful of clerics of both ends of the moral spectrum.
A good cleric would probably open up with a Turn Undead because anybody riding a skeletal steed is probably evil. Why waste time on a detect evil spell?
An evil cleric would probably open up with a Rebuke Undead, if he's aggressive, he'd kill you regardless of your alignment, and getting control of your mounts would be a good way to split the party so he can take you down piecemeal.

[hamishspence]

A good cleric would probably open up with a Turn Undead because anybody riding a skeletal steed is probably evil. Why waste time on a detect evil spell?

That's not exactly what I would call a "good" cleric- even clerics are aware of the possibility of nonevil people making use of undead. Attacking someone even with Detect Evil is extremely iffy (especially since nonevil people, like nonevil clerics of evil gods, will ping, and not all Evil beings deserve to be attacked.)

Attacking somebody without any evidence of wrongdoing other than "they're riding on an undead" is even worse.

[Kaww]

If I was a good cleric seeing some people riding towards me on skeletal horses do I:

a) spend 3 rounds determining who is evil and who is not

b) turn/destroy undead abominations and see where it goes

c) turn undead and whack the riders with my mace

I'd go with b) especially if Pelor is somewhere in this story...

[hamishspence]

If they're in a city, and no-one else is batting an eye at the presence of undead horses, the least the cleric can do is make inquiries before resorting to violence- lest they be jailed for assault, destruction of property, and maybe even attempted murder.

Even in the wilds, unprovoked attacks are not really the way to go, for good characters (even those that think undead are abominations).

[AvatarZero]

Would you really attack someone with undead horses? Animate Dead isn't a low level spell. What sort of power level are you running your campaign at if "Hey, look, a powerful necromancer. Let's attack him!" isn't a sign of suicidal stupidity?

[Kaww]

Would you really attack someone with undead horses? Animate Dead isn't a low level spell. What sort of power level are you running your campaign at if "Hey, look, a powerful necromancer. Let's attack him!" isn't a sign of suicidal stupidity?

Yes it is suicidal for a low lvl cleric. Higher lvl clerics should risk it, if they are good. If you try to eradicate evil as long as you are not in any real danger you are neutral, not good.

The necromancer in this topic might be neutral since this is actually just a pragmatic solution to a nagging issue: I have to feed them, find water for them, find a relatively dry/warm place for them to stay, they need rest etc.

Most towns/villages , in majority of campaigns, frown upon the idea of undead walking around.

[jmbrown]

You shouldn't worry about opposing clerics but druids. Slaying a living animal just to create a tireless mount is pretty high up in their list of "I'm going to exact Nature's wrath on your ass."

[Snake-Aes]

Yes it is suicidal for a low lvl cleric. Higher lvl clerics should risk it, if they are good. If you try to eradicate evil as long as you are not in any real danger you are neutral, not good.

The necromancer in this topic might be neutral since this is actually just a pragmatic solution to a nagging issue: I have to feed them, find water for them, find a relatively dry/warm place for them to stay, they need rest etc.

Most towns/villages , in majority of campaigns, frown upon the idea of undead walking around.

That's a separate context. If the horses are making everyone go "oh my god it's the end of the world we're gonna die hey let's give it a go since we'll die anyway", then the good guy stops the horses and inquires about what is going on.


the Good alignment, overall, is not about defaulting to Ecclesiastical Smiting.


Mr OP, everyone is always proficient with their natural weapons. Your horses have 2xhoof + 1xbite.

[Kaww]

Nowhere have I stated that he should smite the riders. Only horses (answer b) not c) aka smite).

You know like: 'No you don't, not on my watch'.

[Snake-Aes]

I didn't specify rider-smiting. Just smiting. You just don't default to that.

[jmbrown]

I didn't specify rider-smiting. Just smiting. You just don't default to that.

If a mockery of life and embodiment of evil and negative energy is riding towards you at full speed you're going to pull your holy symbol out and do something about it.

It's like expecting a soldier not to shoot at an armed enemy advancing on his position. "Oh, he's carrying a gun and wearing the enemy's uniform but maybe he's not hostile lemme stand still and wave him on." Unless horrific monsters in your universe are so comic-book trivial that the average commoner sees one on his way to work every day, someone is going to raise arms and defeat it and the person riding it.

[hamishspence]

But the original statement didn't specify that the undead horses were "being ridden toward the cleric at full speed".

"Attack all undead on sight- even those that are relatively harmless and being commanded by somebody" is pretty foolhardy- and may lead to charges of destruction of property.

The creation of undead can, in some areas of D&D worlds, be considered normal practice, not a "act that warrants immediate attack"- plus, the person may simply have bought the skeletal horse and not created it.

How tolerated undead are may vary- but except in the most rigidly anti-undead countries, the presence of undead animals wouldn't normally be "grounds for immediately attacking the guy owning them".

Good clerics should be more restrained than that.

[Snake-Aes]

You are assuming too much.

[hamishspence]

True- but I'm used to settings where undead creatures are used in countries that are not particularly malevolent- Eberron, Planescape.

I figure Good characters tend not to attack people- even undead-owning people, without a bit more provocation. And many of the arguments for why creating undead is problematic (lack of respect for the bodies of the dead, preventing dead beings from being affected by Raise Dead, and so on) don't really hold water in the case of undead animals.

[jmbrown]

But the original statement didn't specify that the undead horses were "being ridden toward the cleric at full speed".

"Attack all undead on sight- even those that are relatively harmless and being commanded by somebody" is pretty foolhardy- and may lead to charges of destruction of property.

The creation of undead can, in some areas of D&D worlds, be considered normal practice, not a "act that warrants immediate attack"- plus, the person may simply have bought the skeletal horse and not created it.

How tolerated undead are may vary- but except in the most rigidly anti-undead countries, the presence of undead animals wouldn't normally be "grounds for immediately attacking the guy owning them".

Good clerics should be more restrained than that.

By traditional D&D standards, ever since the game's inception, undead are evil abominations of nature infused with the most negative energies in the universe. Undead means that you slew a living creature, dug up its remains (grave robbing has historically been a crime punishable by death), or desecrated its carcass (again, respecting the sanctity of death has always been a taboo in real-world history) by bringing un-life into it.

So unless your world is light-hearted or undead are actually neutral in alignment, D&D assumptions are that they're mindless creatures filled with negativity and hate. The very fact you have one is the equivalent of sneaking into a graveyard and pissing on the tombstones.

[Snake-Aes]

True- but I'm used to settings where undead creatures are used in countries that are not particularly malevolent- Eberron, Planescape.

I figure Good characters tend not to attack people- even undead-owning people, without a bit more provocation. And many of the arguments for why creating undead is problematic (lack of respect for the bodies of the dead, preventing dead beings from being affected by Raise Dead, and so on) don't really hold water in the case of undead animals.

I was talking about the other guy.

By traditional D&D standards, ever since the game's inception, undead are evil abominations of nature infused with the most negative energies in the universe.

And that, itself, contradicts the system's logic. Their alignment literally trumps the rules. See the thread "necomancy:evil?" for further reference.

[hamishspence]

Undead means that you slew a living creature, dug up its remains (grave robbing has historically been a crime punishable by death), or desecrated its carcass (again, respecting the sanctity of death has always been a taboo in real-world history) by bringing un-life into it.

None of these really apply to animals. Especially not if the animal was slain for other reasons than animating (food? Leather?), and the leftovers animated.

"Bringing negative energy into the world, making it a darker and more evil place" was the rationale for it being evil in BoVD.

Nonetheless, violence may still be an inappropriate response to minor evil deeds- even for clerics of Good deities. (casting an [Evil] spell is one of the least evil of evil acts).

I was talking about the other guy.

Good point.