Re: Mechanical discussion

[Athelstan]

BITW??

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

BITW??

Blood In The Water. One of the previous games.

[Reader]

That's right. Alright, action post incoming shortly.

Lord Mooton is all about that action boss, like a young Marshawn Lynch.

[Nathaniel Mason]

[url=http:
//dragonsdance.
forumatic.
com/viewtopic.
php?p=18109#p18109:32v3gqvp]Subject: [Day 5 Round 3]Baelon v Lord Manfryd Mooton[/url:32v3gqvp]

[OOC: one lesser action's worth, although neither of you have drawn your sword yet]

Drawing a weapon is a free action per p153, but a lesser action per p164... so which is it?

The need not necessarily be contradictory.

Page 153 implies drawing a weapon as part of an attack. page 164 implies drawing a weapon as part of a move.

I would say, if you moved in the combat turn, you get the -1D, if you didn't move, you don't.

But that is just one man's opinion. The rules can be very contradictory at times.

[Theomore Tullison]

I'd say that the interact action on p. 164 overrides the mention on p. 153, because it deals with the specific case of dealing with items in combat.

[Baelon Drakeson]

[url=http:
//dragonsdance.
forumatic.
com/viewtopic.
php?p=23213#p23213:1ia2jvku]Subject: [D7, Early Morning] Marei's Seven[/url:1ia2jvku]

OOC: I haven't done much mounted combat in SIFRP, but I thought it required a Lesser Action to maintain control over a war trained steed (p.58 and 164 of the GoT edition)? So, shouldn't your actions look more like:
Lesser Action to mount
Lesser Action to control steed
Steed takes Lesser or Greater Action to move
You spend fatigue for a Lesser Action to sever the noose?

So I had forgotten about this when I wrote my post... it won't really affect my actions because it is a lesser action.

However, it does mean that greater actions are not possible when mounted... so no cavalry charges. No catching your breath. You can't even Pass or Yield.

That seems ridiculous, and I've generally seen it ignored for war trained steeds, ignoring that bit on 58/164 and favoring pg. 163, "
use the mount's Movement in place of your own"
, and the mount simply does not get any actions of their own.

I see two alternate possibilities - either you use one of your mounts actions to control it (leaving only a lesser action for movement), or you are only required to do so when engaged in melee. Both still have odd effects though, like using your horse's action to move, then using your own actions to charge on the first interpretation or not being able to yield in melee in the second.

[Jon Cobb]

Found this on the archived GR forums. The answers are by RJS, the game's designer, so they can at least give us an insight into his intentions (especially interesting bits are bolded).

Q) I’m confused about mounts, how to use them out of combat, and how to use them in combat.
A) Whenever you would mount a horse and ride it, the steed must be willing to bear you. As a general rule, a potential steed with a Disposition greater than Dislike will tolerate a rider. Asserting your control over the steed requires a Lesser Action, Automatic (0) Animal Handling test. One test is sufficient unless circumstances change: bad weather, combat, injuries, and so on.

If the steed’s Disposition is Dislike or worse, however, you must engage in a Conflict Test described on page 55. This test is made while you are riding the beast, and allies may assist as normal provide they are close enough to handle the animal. Each test is a Lesser Action and each success grants you a number of rounds of automatic control, meaning you do not need to test Animal Handling until the specified period expires.

Combat adds another wrinkle. If you are already riding a steed when combat begins, you must spend a Lesser Action to maintain control (otherwise the steed’s disposition goes to Dislike and you must spend Lesser Actions to establish control). If you are already riding a war-trained steed when combat begins, you need not spend the Lesser Action to maintain control.

If you are not mounted and you wish to become so in the midst of combat, you may spend a Lesser Action to assume control over a war-trained steed or a Greater Action to assume control over a non-war trained steed.

Once in control in combat, you can spend actions to command your steed as follows.

Move: The steed moves (lesser, war-trained;
greater when not war-trained)
Sprint: The steed sprints (greater)
Steed Attack: the steed attacks (less, war-trained;
greater when not war-trained)

Also this (important bits in bold):

Q) It says in the book that, in combat, you may only use one of your actions per turn to "
attack"
. It has also been stated here that assisting another character's attack also counts as an attack.
However, can you, on the same turn, Attack and:
- command your horse to attack?
- pull rider from mount?
- disarm?
- distract?
- knockdown?
- maneuver?
- trample?
A) Several actions you list require greater actions and thus can’t be combined. So you can’t normally combine Pulling a Rider from a Mount, Disarm, or Trample with attacks (however see above for fatigue and/or destiny points). When mounted on a steed trained for war, the steed is assumed to be attacking (hence the increased damage on a Fighting test described on page 159). Do note that you have to spend the lesser action to control a war-trained steed anyway. As for the rest, you can Distract, Knockdown, and Maneuver in addition to making attacks.

[Jon Cobb]

Reading RJS's answer above, he seems to be saying that one doesn't need to expend a Lesser Action every round to maintain control of a war trained steed when in combat. You are either assumed to be in control when combat starts, because you presumably already made the Automatic (0) Animal Handling test when you mounted your steed, or you mount your steed and must then spend a Lesser Action taking control of it. This control would then last until something changes, which in combat is likely to be the animal being struck.

However, the answer to the next question is more in line with the language in the GoT rulebook, which I think strongly indicates that you do have to spend a Lesser Action each round to control your steed. RJS also indicates that there are only three possible actions that the mount can take, none of which is a Charge, even though the mount has a Greater Action at its disposal. This closes down the argument that the rider doesn't need to charge because the mount can be ordered to, but even so, we know from the jousting rules that a Charge is possible when mounted.

In short, things remain confusing. My personal opinion is therefore that it would be simplest to only require a rider to spend an action (Lesser or Greater) to control his mount at the start of combat (if you're not mounted when it begins) or when something changes during the combat which would affect the steed (typically when it's injured or frightened, per p. 58). Ordering a steed which is under control to do something, e.g. sprint, should be a Free Action (i.e. the same as shouting orders to men under your command, per p. 153).

[Theomore Tullison]

This we already discussed:

viewtopic.php?f=75&
t=109&
hilit=control&
start=140#p7033

[Baelon Drakeson]

This we already discussed:

viewtopic.php?f=75&
t=109&
hilit=control&
start=140#p7033

Good call. I'll edit my M7 post to reflect this, it works out the same.

EDIT:

Are we using the Moving Targets rule on p.174?

[Athelstan]

I get the Horse is a separate entity to Baelon, but it is still an Greater action you take to make the horse sprint, not the Horse suddenly decides by intuition to sprint and stop next to Marei, unless of course I'm missing something or reading it wrong.

[Ser Jorah Holt]

that's what the control roll is for

[Athelstan]

I prefer "
You spend a lesser action before combat begins and that's that. Horse could either have two actions of your choice, or you simply use it's movement speed instead of it's own."
It's easier for me!

p. 58
You must use a lesser action to control the mount in battle (if trained for war)
Must spend a greater action if it's injured.

The movement is not part of the control it was ruled to be for IN COMBAT, not to make free movement using the horse instead of your own.

So I still think that sprint is a character action using the horse movement to sprint, that's why I'm confused on the movment being the horse own action or PC

[Theomore Tullison]

The short of the ruling made is that when mounted on the horse, and you've made the control roll, you simply use it's movement speed as you would your own. And you get +2 damage if you stay in place.

[Athelstan]

So using the "
sprint"
action is really a PC action not a separate horse action, which means you can't take the sprint Greater Action correct?

Edit: Sorry if I sound as a nag, but I rather not have this issue if it comes up later on.

[Theomore Tullison]

Yes, and no.

You only spend the lesser action to control horse once, not each round. Which means you can sprint later.

[Kevan Lyras]

Great first ever fight to be involved under sifrp rules :? I will post my actions forcthe first 3 rounds tonight as I am at work.
What do I have to roll to mount my horse when I got already attacked in round 1?

[Reader]

Great first ever fight to be involved under sifrp rules :? I will post my actions forcthe first 3 rounds tonight as I am at work.
What do I have to roll to mount my horse when I got already attacked in round 1?

Kevan, you'll eat a "
disengagement attack"
from a knight (passive roll of 16, 4 damage per DoS as you mount. I imagine your armour will eat all/most of this attack anyway.

Then you can mount up and crush your foe! Your mount won't have moved, so you'll be at +2 damage.

If you take out this knight over two attacks, that'll be all 5 of my regular knights done in the first two rounds!

Stirring stuff.

[Kevan Lyras]

Saw this just now, after posting. I am hacking with my sword at all this lousy woodsmen as their numbers seem more dangerous with their assists and attempted knowdowns.

[Reader]

Saw this just now, after posting. I am hacking with my sword at all this lousy woodsmen as their numbers seem more dangerous with their assists and attempted knowdowns.

Awesome roll on your first attack!

By round three, everyone bar Ser Lionel is dead or fleeing, thanks to some super rolls, inventive use of destiny (Theo) and fatigue (Baelon).

Will our PCs nobly allow Ser Jorah to duel Ser Lionel, or dogpile?

[Baelon Drakeson]

I've noticed that most people in the M7 thread are forgetting that you get to add your animal handling rank as bonus dice on fighting checks while mounted on war-trained steeds.
That is a general thing, not just jousting. In fact, the only jousting-specific rules are that you must charge and the unhorsing mechanic. Everything else is general.

So for instance, Baelon normally rolls 7d6k5 for a longsword attack. With 4 Animal Handling, that would become 11d6k5, but his bonus dice are capped at 5 (his test/kept dice), so 10d6k5... similarly, if your opponent is not mounted, you get a +1B bonus... which more likely than not will be dropped for hitting your cap unless you are a FAR better fighter than rider.

Between all the extra bonus dice and the bonus damage if your horse has not moved, fighting on horseback is MUCH more effective than on foot.

[Dunstan Tullison]

Well, fuck. That piece of info could have very well saved me from that wound, since I would use a DP for -1D on him instead of +1B on me.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Penalty dice do not affect bonus dice at all.

If Baelon had -2D, his normal 7d6k5 longsword fighting test would be 7d6k3.

[Dunstan Tullison]

What I meant is this:

Fatigue to ignore AP. 13-2=11, DP for bonus dice: [url=DP Bonus Dice][/url]: 1d6 3, new result 13= success)

With AH bonus dice I would likely succeed without the need for that DP, which would go on -1D on him.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Ah, yes. even a couple bonus dice can make a huge difference, so you likely would not have needed the DP.
I had thought you were saying you could have used a DP to reduce his attack roll and thus reduced his bonus dice as well as kept dice.

Perhaps Reader will be kind and let you roll the bonus dice and substitute after the fact, reclaiming the DP?

[Sponsored content]