Re: Subject: Mounted Combat

From: Henrix <henrix_at_...>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:30:52 +0200


On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, t.s.baguley_at_... wrote:
> > From: Andrew Barton <AndrewBarton_at_...>
> >I was pretty sure I'd seen this in the rules ...
> >
> >Certainly, the way I run it is as follows.
> >
> >A character that spends most of his time mounted, has learned his skills
> >mounted, and is at no penalty to use them mounted. If he uses them on
> >foot, he becomes subject to improvisational penalties.
> >
> >Reverse this for characters that spend most of their time on foot.
>
> Yes. The rules add that if you have the ride ability you can fight at no
> penalty on horseback (though I think many will interpret this as up to but
> not exceeding the lowest of ride and close combat).

I understood (or chose to understand) the statement regarding Grazers and others as getting penalties for fightning unmounted to mean that you could learn close combat techniques as either mounted or unmounted, that is, a hero could well have Mounted Axe & Shield fighting as well as (Unmounted) Axe & Shield fighting.

This has the advantage of making the average Grazer better at fighting mounted versus the ordinary mounted Heortling, and vice versa, emphasizing their different fighting styles. Otherwise the ordinary Heortling Weaponthane is as good at fighting from horseback as an ordinary Grazers, which does not fit into my view of them as mounted infantry (rather than cavalry).

The situation arised when oneof my players wanted to play a Heortling character who had lived for several years among the Grazers. Thus he is good at fighting with Spear & Shield on foot, but prefers to fight with an axe while mounted.

-- 
Henrix

Powered by hypermail