Re: Mechanical discussion

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

I'll let Darron do the honours, but he was reasonably prominent in Story 2.

Colour me intrigued!

[Darron Greyjoy]

Yep as one of these new players I wouldn't want to ruin what you guys have already done and role played. I would be perfectly fine with doing background things while that was going on. Currently working with reader about what to do during season 2.

You're a good example, as we've managed to make your nemesis a character with some presence in the Narrative already.

Creates a rival existing characters are familiar with.

Now I want to know whom!

Ah yes its Ser Myles Blackwood. Darron and him have squared off a few times while Darron participated in raids on Blackwood lands.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

You Longshore rabblerousers. :;
):

I hope we get to meet soon.

[Darron Greyjoy]

You Longshore rabblerousers. :;
):

I hope we get to meet soon.

Well he is a Ironborn lol but I would consider him more friendly and respectful than most of the ones that inhabit the Iron Islands.

[Ser Alfred Haigh]

Raider scum !
I shall look forward to disembowel you !

[Loreia]

We will see, no? One of the PC-controlled Longshore characters subverted expectations, but has behaved in ways that earned a mixed opinion among the other PC characters. It's complicated.

[Nathaniel Mason]

Question: Can mounts attack?

I ask because in the mounted combats I have seen, the mounts never do.

In my Home game, my Wildling PC rides a polar bear. We have always had it attack on it's own initiative. I am just wondering now if we are doing it wrong, but I cannot recall anything in the books that would prevent them. Perhaps one of you can point something out.

[Theomore Tullison]

We haven't been played with them doing that, included in the bonuses for not moving in mounted combat and things like that.

Besides, they mostly got crap attacks.

[Reader]

Question: Can mounts attack?

I ask because in the mounted combats I have seen, the mounts never do.

In my Home game, my Wildling PC rides a polar bear. We have always had it attack on it's own initiative. I am just wondering now if we are doing it wrong, but I cannot recall anything in the books that would prevent them. Perhaps one of you can point something out.

P163 suggests the mount contributes by upping damage instead (if it does not move). Appreciate rules not 100% clear, but this is how we've run it here, in BiTW and Southron Ambitions.

That said, those rules are for a horse. I'd probably treat a polar bear, dragon etc differently, closer to how you do it.

Mounted combat rules are scattered across the book and not 100% consistent.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

So I've been riding a horse like a mug when I could have had a polar bear?!

[Nathaniel Mason]

So I've been riding a horse like a mug when I could have had a polar bear?!

Certainly, if you have Animal Cohort AND Blood of the Wildlings AND Born of the Ice Wives.

It's worth it though.

[Reader]

So I've been riding a horse like a mug when I could have had a polar bear?!

Like a fool.

Roderick Dustin is coming down from the north on one or a dire wolf. Player vote to decide which.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

So I've been riding a horse like a mug when I could have had a polar bear?!

Certainly, if you have Animal Cohort AND Blood of the Wildlings AND Born of the Ice Wives.

It's worth it though.

Damn it. What's the point in amassing wealth if one cannot buy a polar bear?

[Nathaniel Mason]

So I've been riding a horse like a mug when I could have had a polar bear?!

Certainly, if you have Animal Cohort AND Blood of the Wildlings AND Born of the Ice Wives.

It's worth it though.

Damn it. What's the point in amassing wealth if one cannot buy a polar bear?

There is actually no reason why you can't. I am sure if you throw enough money at the Night Watch they can get you one.

It might eat a few people before you get it trained though.


Upon reflection, I suppose the bear gets attacks just by being a Animal Cohort. Regular Cohorts do, in addition to the +2 to CD and ID. I don't really see any reason why an Animal Cohort wouldn't in addition to the +1D. So if your Animal Cohort was your warhorse, I would say it gets attacks.

[Baelon Drakeson]

The book is, frankly, a mess on mounted combat (like so many other things). However, it seems likely that mounts are not intended to be able to act independently from their rider.

Arguably, whenever a mounted combatant moves, they are using the "
Ride or Drive"
action to order their mount to move. Per that action:
"
When mounted on a steed, your mount’s action is spent moving or attacking;
however, you must spend a Lesser Action to control your beast if it is trained for war or a Greater Action if not."

This makes it pretty clear that the rider must command the mount to do anything, the mount's actions are subsumed into the rider's actions.

However, that leads to oddities like using a lesser action to have your mount charge, then a lesser action for the rider to attack, effectively getting 3 lesser actions including 2 attacks.

The simplest fix is to have the mount and rider operate as one unit, with the mount's attacks being represented by the +2 to damage if the mount does not move. All other "
mount actions"
(like having Ser Josef's horse do the knockdown) are just a veneer of description over standard mechanics (so although I described it has Ser Josef's horse knocking down Ser Walton, the test was completely based on Ser Josef's stats). Arguably, one could use the "
Ride or Drive"
action to order the mount to attack, but I would argue that should count as the rider's one attack, and of course would not get the various bonuses for being mounted.

Another way to fix the issue would be to make the action type of the "
Ride or Drive"
action match the action type of the mount's action, so it is a Greater action to order the mount to charge, for instance, whether it be the mount attacking or the rider attacking at the end. However, this also means coming up with some way to differentiate wartrained mounts from non-wartrained, which is why the other fix is simpler.

EDIT: so much ninja on the slow typer!

Upon reflection, I suppose the bear gets attacks just by being a Animal Cohort. Regular Cohorts do, in addition to the +2 to CD and ID. I don't really see any reason why an Animal Cohort wouldn't in addition to the +1D. So if your Animal Cohort was your warhorse, I would say it gets attacks.

There is no reason to think that an Animal Cohort would act any differently than any other mount. +1D on attacks is a pretty big benefit already. Consider that unlike Expertise, it applies to ALL fighting tests, not just those with one weapon. I would consider not attacking to be a fair trade for the benefits of being mounted and for generally not being a target. Alternately, the suggestion I had above about being able to us "
ride or drive"
to order your mount to attack.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Good to know. Now I know what to ask Ben for when Corrine's nameday rolls round.

[Darron Greyjoy]

Im sure most people would be pretty surprised turning up to things with a bear lol.

[Darron Greyjoy]

Continuing on the discussion from the combat. What is the general order of things once a combat starts? I would imagine destroying a shield or knocking a person down would be a good opener but what about using thrown weapons and the like? I know for Darron I would like to up his marksman ability to throw axes at a opponent possibley weakening them before entering to engaged and attacking the turn after.

[Nathaniel Mason]

Upon reflection, I suppose the bear gets attacks just by being a Animal Cohort. Regular Cohorts do, in addition to the +2 to CD and ID. I don't really see any reason why an Animal Cohort wouldn't in addition to the +1D. So if your Animal Cohort was your warhorse, I would say it gets attacks.

There is no reason to think that an Animal Cohort would act any differently than any other mount. +1D on attacks is a pretty big benefit already. Consider that unlike Expertise, it applies to ALL fighting tests, not just those with one weapon. I would consider not attacking to be a fair trade for the benefits of being mounted and for generally not being a target. Alternately, the suggestion I had above about being able to us "
ride or drive"
to order your mount to attack.

I am going to disagree with you, at least in the case of Animal Cohorts. There is every reason to believe an Animal Cohort is a cut above normal animals. If you say an Animal Cohort cannot operate independently, then it follows a regular Cohort cannot operate independently, and most people use Cohorts as full blown independent secondary characters (in addition to the respectable bonus of +2 to ID and CD). Most Animal Cohorts have full (and some quite formidable) stats. Most are not mountable. All can attack when threatened.

A PC's shadowcat is far more than just a walking +1D buff, just as a regular Cohort is far more than just a guy that follows you around. The fact that one or two Animal Cohorts can be mounted does not obliviate their base nature. The only real reason the buff for Animal Cohort is higher, is due to the greater usefulness of an actual person, and the fact that person can gain experience.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Continuing on the discussion from the combat. What is the general order of things once a combat starts? I would imagine destroying a shield or knocking a person down would be a good opener but what about using thrown weapons and the like? I know for Darron I would like to up his marksman ability to throw axes at a opponent possibley weakening them before entering to engaged and attacking the turn after.

There are different strategies. Some like knockdowns to maximize offensive power, some prefer defensive tactics. Some like to charge to get the first hit, others prefer to let their opponents come to them and beef up accuracy with Pass or Aim. What is best is going to depend on the fight. Throwing weapons can be somewhat effective, but adding Marksmanship to the list of attributes you want to develop slows down progress in other areas, so it's a pretty high XP cost for what will often be mediocre attacks.

I am going to disagree with you, at least in the case of Animal Cohorts. There is every reason to believe an Animal Cohort is a cut above normal animals. If you say an Animal Cohort cannot operate independently, then it follows a regular Cohort cannot operate independently, and most people use Cohorts as full blown independent secondary characters (in addition to the respectable bonus of +2 to ID and CD). Most Animal Cohorts have full (and some quite formidable) stats. Most are not mountable. All can attack when threatened.

A PC's shadowcat is far more than just a walking +1D buff, just as a regular Cohort is far more than just a guy that follows you around. The fact that one or two Animal Cohorts can be mounted does not obliviate their base nature. The only real reason the buff for Animal Cohort is higher, is due to the greater usefulness of an actual person, and the fact that person can gain experience.

I think you misunderstood me. I only meant there is no reason (per the rules as written) to treat them different as a mount. Certainly a PCs shadowcat would be able to attack and such. Similarly, a PC should be able to train a shadowcat or fighting dog without taking Animal Cohort;
however, they would not get the +1D. That's no different than a PC getting attacked in front of some guards gettign the assistance of those guards. It doesn't take a benefit for that (gettign it routinely is a different matter). No, an animal companion is not just a +1D... but that's what the Animal Companion benefit does.

[Nathaniel Mason]

I think you misunderstood me. I only meant there is no reason (per the rules as written) to treat them different as a mount. Certainly a PCs shadowcat would be able to attack and such. Similarly, a PC should be able to train a shadowcat or fighting dog without taking Animal Cohort;
however, they would not get the +1D. That's no different than a PC getting attacked in front of some guards gettign the assistance of those guards. It doesn't take a benefit for that (gettign it routinely is a different matter). No, an animal companion is not just a +1D... but that's what the Animal Companion benefit does.

Okay. I follow you so far. So if we assume that my polar bear can attack independently while unmounted, what specifically in the rules prevents him from attacking while mounted? I have not seen anything, but you know mounted combat better than I. If there is a rule somewhere that I am missing, I'd appreciate if you can point me to it.

(This is for my own knowledge. I don't expect polar bears in this game, and taking a warhorse as an Animal Cohort here would be foolish considering how easily they might be killed.)

[Baelon Drakeson]

Okay. I follow you so far. So if we assume that my polar bear can attack independently while unmounted, what specifically in the rules prevents him from attacking while mounted? I have not seen anything, but you know mounted combat better than I. If there is a rule somewhere that I am missing, I'd appreciate if you can point me to it.

Ay, there's the rub. It's not clearly stated anywhere, but it is what we have inferred from two things:
First, the text of the Ride or Drive action:
"
When mounted on a steed, your mount’s action is spent moving or attacking;
however, you must spend a Lesser Action to control your beast if it is trained for war or a Greater Action if not."

Second, the various and quite significant mechanical benefits to being mounted.

(This is for my own knowledge. I don't expect polar bears in this game, and taking a warhorse as an Animal Cohort here would be foolish considering how easily they might be killed.)

Compare to what? If we restrict the comparison to just the animals listed in the Animal Cohort benefit, a destrier has the highest endurance and second highest combat defense. Plus, they won't be attacked in combat by the honorable (if mounted), which is not likely the case for a wolf or shadowcat.

I actually considered getting a destier animal cohort, but decided against it because it wasn't terribly in character and, if anything, it's a bit overpowered.
You can't use any other cohort (of either sort) in a joust, for instance.

[Nathaniel Mason]

"
When mounted on a steed, your mount’s action is spent moving or attacking;
however, you must spend a Lesser Action to control your beast if it is trained for war or a Greater Action if not."

[Bold my emphasis]

This seems very clear to me. The mount can spend it's [combat] action to move or attack. It can't do both, but it can do either. It's not the rider's action, it's the mount's action. So a Knight could move his mount into position with a lesser action and then attack, or he can spend a lesser action and both he and his mount can attack if both have targets available and in range, provided the mount does not move.

A destrier has a 3D 4 damage bite or 3D 6 Damage hoof attack. Not glorious, but not trifling either.

Edit: Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Baelon. I'm quite satisfied now. I have been doing it wrong. I'll follow this from now on.

I actually considered getting a destrier animal cohort, but decided against it because it wasn't terribly in character and, if anything, it's a bit overpowered. You can't use any other cohort (of either sort) in a joust, for instance.

From what I am reading here, it might be very worthwhile.

[Reader]

Continuing on the discussion from the combat. What is the general order of things once a combat starts? I would imagine destroying a shield or knocking a person down would be a good opener but what about using thrown weapons and the like? I know for Darron I would like to up his marksman ability to throw axes at a opponent possibley weakening them before entering to engaged and attacking the turn after.

A viable option, depending on how far apart you start. A bit of marksmanship can be handy!

[Baelon Drakeson]

"
When mounted on a steed, your mount’s action is spent moving or attacking;
however, you must spend a Lesser Action to control your beast if it is trained for war or a Greater Action if not."

[Bold my emphasis]

This seems very clear to me. The mount can spend it's [combat] action to move or attack. It can't do both, but it can do either. It's not the rider's action, it's the mount's action. So a Knight could move his mount into position with a lesser action and then attack, or he can spend a lesser action and both he and his mount can attack if both have targets available and in range, provided the mount does not move.

Keep in mind though, that text is itself part of the Ride or Drive action, which is either lesser or greater, depending on the mount. As I said, it's rather unclear. Do you spend an action to give your mount extra actions? Can a mount not take actions without the rider spending actions? The former means a mounted horse can move faster than an unmounted horse, which makes no sense... the latter means a mounted warrior can't charge, jsut order the mount to move, then attack. Neither option is particularly satisfactory, which is why we just kind of gloss over it.

A destrier has a 3D 4 damage bite or 3D 6 Damage hoof attack. Not glorious, but not trifling either.

Better than most divided attacks, that's for sure.

I actually considered getting a destrier animal cohort, but decided against it because it wasn't terribly in character and, if anything, it's a bit overpowered. You can't use any other cohort (of either sort) in a joust, for instance.

From what I am reading here, it might be very worthwhile.

Oh, aye, it would definitely be worthwhile. I wouldn't think of it as overpowered if I didn't think of it as worth taking. :;
):
Still, I opted for something else that was more fitting to Baelon. He's not exactly A Boy and his Horse or herald of Valdemar material. What Loreia does with Badger is great, but I don't see Baelon ever thinking of his horse that way. Far more utilitarian... and in my mind that doesn't fit Animal Cohort.

[Sponsored content]