Mounted Combat in LFR

85 posts / 0 new
Last post
I'm wondering why I don't see more people on mounts in LFR.  As the rules are written, mounts are just about the most stupid broken mechanic in 4E, at least for a melee fighter.

  • You become a Large creature - sure you don't have threatening reach, but all of your burst 1 powers just went from 8 adjacent squares to 12 adjacent squares.  Burst 2 powers go from 24 squares to 32 squares.

  • Increase in speed - Just about every mount will give you a speed that is significantly higher than your current speed.

  • Landwalk - depending on the mount, you get to ignore shallow water, or difficult terrain.

  • Climb Speed - You don't have to make a climb check ever.  You don't grant combat advantage while climbing.  

  • Flying - come on.  Flying???

  • Mounted Combat
    • Mount special attacks - Even with the nerf of the giant riding lizard, buy an elephant and trample adjacent foes.  Buy a rhino and gore your target.

    • Use your athletics/acrobatics/stealth checks instead of the animals.


  • Mount Death - if it dies, you get it back at the end of the run.

  • Large creature - Move it into a doorway, and no bad guy is getting past you to your buddies

  • Prone - if you get knocked prone, you are suddenly a dwarf and get a saving throw.  If you are already a dwarf, you get a second save.


I've run across at least two modules where having the riding lizard changes the BBEG encounter from "oh carp!" to "oh, I run up the cliff and attack the boss/minion archers who were using terrain cheese.

Am I the only one who sees the goldmine that is having a mount?

I'm sincerely tempted to buy a herd (4+) of camels (Speed 9) or splurging on Giant Draft Lizard ( Speed 7, Climb 2, swampwalk) just to loan out to other party members.  It would be a blast to see the entire party riding through an adventure.

Comments?
I'm wondering why I don't see more people on mounts in LFR.  As the rules are written, mounts are just about the most stupid broken mechanic in 4E, at least for a melee fighter.

  • You become a Large creature - sure you don't have threatening reach, but all of your burst 1 powers just went from 8 adjacent squares to 12 adjacent squares.  Burst 2 powers go from 24 squares to 32 squares.


Comments?



You are only in one square, chosen when you fire your burst. 

Your mount will usually count as an ally for flanking, taking care of the issue of you only providing flanks yourself from one square.

Still, my dwarf laser cleric has been a frontliner since I dropped SMALL cash on a draft lizard.

 
I'm wondering why I don't see more people on mounts in LFR.  As the rules are written, mounts are just about the most stupid broken mechanic in 4E, at least for a melee fighter.

  • You become a Large creature - sure you don't have threatening reach, but all of your burst 1 powers just went from 8 adjacent squares to 12 adjacent squares.  Burst 2 powers go from 24 squares to 32 squares.


Comments?



You are only in one square, chosen when you fire your burst. 

Your mount will usually count as an ally for flanking, taking care of the issue of you only providing flanks yourself from one square.

Still, my dwarf laser cleric has been a frontliner since I dropped SMALL cash on a draft lizard.

 



From DMG, pg 46: "Space: You and your mount occupy the mount’s space. If it is ever important to determine the precise location within the mount’s space that you occupy, you choose."

From PHB, pg 56: "Close burst [number]: A close burst power allows you to target creatures or objects within the indicated number of squares from you in all directions. See page 272 for how to determine the area of a burst."

Is there an errata or official clerification that specifies that the close burst selects one of your four squares that you occupy?  If it does, then you will end up hitting your mount with a lot of attacks, and that seems odd.
There are a number of people in my area that went for the riding lizard and at least one that got a griffon (which is a pretty darn ridiculous creature--though it gets better if you're not familiar with the flying rules and it gets to shift while flying despite not being able to hover).

I haven't done it for any of my characters though.
1. I can usually get by without the extra movement.
2. The popular ones are just so darn cheesy. (Seriously, the pre-errata riding lizard was ridiculous with a tempest fighter riding it; the griffon is pretty ridiculous too (the last game I played featured a griffon-riding tactical warlord doing about 78 damage per round with his at-will griffon charge+action) and, given how everyone is now talking about the rhino, I'm sure it will be pretty bad).
3. Mounts lead to a lot of ridiculous images--and always have. "I'm taking my rhino up the stairs to the second floor of the inn." Seriously?!? The structure probably isn't weighted for a riding lizard let alone a rhino.
4. Mounts lead to in-game antics. "How is my rhino going to climb the 50 foot cliff/1000 foot chain?" Well, we'll start by building a wooden badger with a crane.... I'd rather not have every other session become an exercise in engineering as I try to justify having my whatever overcome obstacle A, B, or C.
5. I had way too much whining about "But my fifteen foot long dire bear is an animal companion, if it doesn't fit in the six foot rowboat, I'm losing my class feature/feat for the whole adventure...." in Living Greyhawk to be willing to give any pet mechanics a fair shake.

So, I resolved to be a part of the solution rather than a part of the problem. Therefore I'm boycotting  mounts.
Is there an errata or official clerification that specifies that the close burst selects one of your four squares that you occupy?  If it does, then you will end up hitting your mount with a lot of attacks, and that seems odd.



It's up to the DM to decide when it's "important to determine the precise location" you're occupying.  Personally, I consider that it's important to know what square you're actually in as soon as combat starts.

Being able to dash from side to side and enlarge a close burst because you're on a horse seems the more odd result to me.  Considering many (most martial) close bursts only affect enemies and wouldn't affect your mount, and the ones that would affect your mount are the ones that are designed to be ally-unfriendly, I don't really have a problem with that result.
To add to Elder_basilisk's list...

6.  The weight capacity of most mounts is quite low.  In order to ride one without automatically slowing it down, you have to further cheese out your character by giving him/her an abnormally low weight.

7. You need the Mounted Combat feat to use their powers effectively, which doesn't fit into everyone's character build.
To add to Elder_basilisk's list...

6.  The weight capacity of most mounts is quite low.  In order to ride one without automatically slowing it down, you have to further cheese out your character by giving him/her an abnormally low weight.



Very odd that the weight capacity is so low (An elephant can only carry 312 lbs as a light load - Really?  Come on, Really?).  However, you can work within that limit (store gear on a pack-mule/riding horse) or you can always simply quote the DMG:

"Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and
let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun."


It's up to the DM to decide when it's "important to determine the precise location" you're occupying.  Personally, I consider that it's important to know what square you're actually in as soon as combat starts.

From the way it's written I think that they did not intend one of the most common combat situations to be a case for "if it's ever". It just sounds like they couldn't come up with any specific example for when it would be important, because they considered it obvious that a burst increases with the mount space. Otherwise a PC would be justified to claim to be out of range of melee monsters being adjacent to one side of his mount or that a flanking bonus only counts against his mount, but never against himself.

So the "if ever" is likley to refer to any non-standard situation that might come up, but not to standard situations like close blasts and being attacked in melee.
Very odd that the weight capacity is so low (An elephant can only carry 312 lbs as a light load - Really?  Come on, Really?).  However, you can work within that limit (store gear on a pack-mule/riding horse) or you can always simply quote the DMG:

"Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and
let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun."

Yet in this case it's not about meaningless micro management, in case of mounts this has a very important and drastic effect on combat effectivity so it should be enforced

Very odd that the weight capacity is so low (An elephant can only carry 312 lbs as a light load - Really?  Come on, Really?).  However, you can work within that limit (store gear on a pack-mule/riding horse) or you can always simply quote the DMG:

"Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and
let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun."





The DMG isn't a player resource

Also, the DMG is flat out wrong in a number of instances and that is one of them. Food supplies, etc are essential parts of a number of types of adventures that lots of people had fun playing before fourth edition came around. The whole, frontier expedition or travel mod loses a lot of its flavor without those details.
Mounts are definitely quite useful.  However there are some reasons why people might not use them:

  • No resale value - Mounts are actually somewhat of an expenditure if you want to get a mount appropriate for your level and unlike magic items you can't even disenchant/sell them for 20% of their value

  • Larger size makes it easier to flanked (although they reverse is also true that they make it easier for you to flank).

  • Larger size also makes you more likely to trigger Opporunity Attacks while moving

  • Dismounting/Mounting takes a standard action, unless you take a level 6 skill (Utility) Power that also requires you to be trained in nature.

  • Difficult to move in underground/indoor maps in general.  It's easy to get stuck in some of the underground/indoor maps that involve the random squares of blocking terrain, especially with a few scattered enemies around.  For melee characters this can easily prevent you from getting where you need to be.  Also along these lines most maps are designed with only a 6 squares or so of starting zone for the players.  If an entire party is mounted I'm not sure where they'd fit.

  • Technically according to the DMG the DM is allowed to throw extra XP worth of threat/monsters at you to compensate for mounts if they are close enough to the character's current level.


That being said, I agree with you that they seem to be a great asset.  For those with high armor penalties it's an easy way to get around the problem of a terrible Athletics/Stealth/Acrobatics skill (why use my skill when the mount's is better?).

Overall though they are very situational depending on where you're fighting.  If you're doing combat in larger open areas or other outdoors settings they're amazing.  If you're indoors you're better off starting off unmounted and just keeping them in the back (or out of battle entirely).

Very odd that the weight capacity is so low (An elephant can only carry 312 lbs as a light load - Really?  Come on, Really?).  However, you can work within that limit (store gear on a pack-mule/riding horse) or you can always simply quote the DMG:

"Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and
let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun."





The DMG isn't a player resource

Also, the DMG is flat out wrong in a number of instances and that is one of them. Food supplies, etc are essential parts of a number of types of adventures that lots of people had fun playing before fourth edition came around. The whole, frontier expedition or travel mod loses a lot of its flavor without those details.



I like the frontier expedition thing, but once you establish that a person with sufficient skill (a ranger, perhaps) can simply spend a couple of hours foraging for the party each day and keep them fed, it sometimes undercuts game play to keep worrying about it.

It's not like the Forgotten Realms is DarkSun, where the world is actively trying to kill you on a continuing basis.  LFR has adventurers travelling from one end of the Realms to the other and back again for each module.  There's a certain level of "just go with it" that everyone has to accept.  The fact that WOTC can't come up with realistic weight capacities for beasts of burden just becomes another of the "don't think about the facts, they'll just ruin the story" type of deals.

(Why am I reminded of the Austin Powers time travel paradox line: "It's best not to think about these thing Austin. [to the camera] And _you_ shouldn't either." ?)

You are right, the DMG isn't a player resource, but it is a rules source.  Whether or not you agree with it, it's part of the core rules.  Otherwise we would have no rules for difficult terrain, blocking terrain, flying, disease, poison, etc.)

  •  Also along these lines most maps are designed with only a 6 squares or so of starting zone for the players.  If an entire party is mounted I'm not sure where they'd fit.



This one is actually a feature, not a bug. Since the powers that be in the campaign insist on keeping that stupid penalty box on the maps and at least 1/3 of judges still interpret that as a "all characters must fit within the box in perfect formation to get hit with three bursts that stun, daze, restrain, dominate, knock prone, and/or inflict 30 ongoing damage before they have a chance to act," having a mount that prevents the party from possibly fitting in the box is often the only way to obtain a sane marching order without first arguing with the DM.

From DMG, pg 46: "Space: You and your mount occupy the mount’s space. If it is ever important to determine the precise location within the mount’s space that you occupy, you choose."




Your PC could technically never be flanked as you can choose one of the four squares that does not allow flanking.
Cool 

From DMG, pg 46: "Space: You and your mount occupy the mount’s space. If it is ever important to determine the precise location within the mount’s space that you occupy, you choose."




Your PC could technically never be flanked as you can choose one of the four squares that does not allow flanking.
 



During combat, most dm's I've seen while playing since I acquired the draft lizard (Mounted combat doesn't fit my laser cleric build) require that you know what square you're in any time you are determining range.

With regard to the close burst powers: You are using the power, not the mount. You need to know a precise location to measure range. Therefore, you are only in one square when using an attack power. This is particularly good if you need to be on the far side of the mount from the attacker (i.e. firing a ranged power, letting the mount's barding take damage for you and the mount rather than you). 

 I have seen some variation in how freely you can adjust your position within the mount's space.

 
I'm wondering why I don't see more people on mounts in LFR. As the rules are written, mounts are just about the most stupid broken mechanic in 4E,



...that's probably why more people don't use them :P
They're pretty good at low levels, but once you start getting more enemies doing more than just damage with their attacks, your below-level mount can become a liability.  When your lizard starts getting slid, immobilized, dazed, stunned, and knocked prone ...

Hah, I don't even want to think about a mount getting dominated. It'd hurt my brain.


As for needing to know the precise square you're in, I believe that is intended for things like area bursts effects that are centered on a target, and the rider is the target.
They're pretty good at low levels, but once you start getting more enemies doing more than just damage with their attacks, your below-level mount can become a liability.  When your lizard starts getting slid, immobilized, dazed, stunned, and knocked prone ...

Hah, I don't even want to think about a mount getting dominated. It'd hurt my brain.


As for needing to know the precise square you're in, I believe that is intended for things like area bursts effects that are centered on a target, and the rider is the target.



I agree with you about the precise square.  Again, would be nice to have clarification in the rules. 

What I've noticed is that nobody targets the mount.  Because you are the bigger threat, the target is generally you.  If they do target the mount, they're somewhat wasting the action. 

Practiced Rider is an excellent utility power for pc's with mounted combat.  Hmm, get off and on as a minor action.  (Let's see, ride elephant into combat, with riding lizard that the rules wouldn't let me sell trailing behind.  Elephant gets stunned.  Minor dismount.  Minor mount riding lizard.  Standard charge.  )

Given that a dominated creature is dazed and cannot make opportunity attacks, and that the rider determines what actions (if any) the mount takes of the shared actions, it doesn't seem like a problem to simply ignore the condition. (Again, rules clarification would be great.)

Harder rules question would be - if rider is dazed but mount isn't, can mount take a move action, and rider take his standard action.  Or, if rider is immobilized but mount isn't, can mount move, and rider simply remain in saddle and move with mount?  Or, if rider is grabbed, but mount isn't, can mount move outside of reach of grabbing creature, thus ending the grab condition? 

Rules clarifications would be nice.


Harder rules question would be - if rider is dazed but mount isn't, can mount take a move action, and rider take his standard action.  Or, if rider is immobilized but mount isn't, can mount move, and rider simply remain in saddle and move with mount?  Or, if rider is grabbed, but mount isn't, can mount move outside of reach of grabbing creature, thus ending the grab condition? 




I think you're making a difficult question out of a fairly common sense scenario.

- If the rider is dazed, but the mount isn't, I would consider dazed rules to still apply.  The dazed rider is still, ultimately, in control of the mount.  The rider doesn't currently have the capacity to both control/communicate with the mount and effectively fight, and a mount properly trained for combat conditions isn't going to act without instructions.  If a mount is intelligent enough to think and move independently, I would argue that it becomes the DM's decision as to when and where the mount should move.

- In terms of immobility, I'd argue once again that the movement of the mount comes at the DM's discretion, as though it were an NPC assisting the party.  Perhaps the mount continues to fight, or perhaps it panics and throws its rider or flees.  What does the party do when their defender's warhorse is spooked and bolts, with the defender still clinging to the saddle?  Fun times. ;) or perhaps, conversely, the DM thinks the mount would  stand and fight.  This is one of those case-by-case scenarios where I strongly feel the best course of action is not necessarily that which aids or hinders the players but which tells the most interesting story.

- If a rider is grabbed and the mount tries to move away, wouldn't the character just get dragged out of the saddle?  It seems to me the character would still need to make an attempt to break the grab, or else be pulled from the mount.  Perhaps in that instance a mount would provide a small bonus to the check, much the same way a fellow PC might offer an assist?

Just some ideas.

Harder rules question would be - if rider is dazed but mount isn't, can mount take a move action, and rider take his standard action.  Or, if rider is immobilized but mount isn't, can mount move, and rider simply remain in saddle and move with mount?  Or, if rider is grabbed, but mount isn't, can mount move outside of reach of grabbing creature, thus ending the grab condition? 




I think you're making a difficult question out of a fairly common sense scenario.

- If the rider is dazed, but the mount isn't, I would consider dazed rules to still apply.  The dazed rider is still, ultimately, in control of the mount.  The rider doesn't currently have the capacity to both control/communicate with the mount and effectively fight, and a mount properly trained for combat conditions isn't going to act without instructions.  If a mount is intelligent enough to think and move independently, I would argue that it becomes the DM's decision as to when and where the mount should move.

- In terms of immobility, I'd argue once again that the movement of the mount comes at the DM's discretion, as though it were an NPC assisting the party.  Perhaps the mount continues to fight, or perhaps it panics and throws its rider or flees.  What does the party do when their defender's warhorse is spooked and bolts, with the defender still clinging to the saddle?  Fun times. ;) or perhaps, conversely, the DM thinks the mount would  stand and fight.  This is one of those case-by-case scenarios where I strongly feel the best course of action is not necessarily that which aids or hinders the players but which tells the most interesting story.

- If a rider is grabbed and the mount tries to move away, wouldn't the character just get dragged out of the saddle?  It seems to me the character would still need to make an attempt to break the grab, or else be pulled from the mount.  Perhaps in that instance a mount would provide a small bonus to the check, much the same way a fellow PC might offer an assist?

Just some ideas.



Some good ideas, and a good DM can do a lot to make a reasonable decision that helps game play, but given the _tactical_ nature of 4e, these are really a lot of issues that should be addressed as codified rules, rather than DM fiat.

The fact that the rules are not adequately codified to deal with situations that actually do occur on a regular basis is a customer service failing.


Harder rules question would be - if rider is dazed but mount isn't, can mount take a move action, and rider take his standard action.  Or, if rider is immobilized but mount isn't, can mount move, and rider simply remain in saddle and move with mount?  Or, if rider is grabbed, but mount isn't, can mount move outside of reach of grabbing creature, thus ending the grab condition? 




I think you're making a difficult question out of a fairly common sense scenario.

- If the rider is dazed, but the mount isn't, I would consider dazed rules to still apply.  The dazed rider is still, ultimately, in control of the mount.  The rider doesn't currently have the capacity to both control/communicate with the mount and effectively fight, and a mount properly trained for combat conditions isn't going to act without instructions.  If a mount is intelligent enough to think and move independently, I would argue that it becomes the DM's decision as to when and where the mount should move.

- In terms of immobility, I'd argue once again that the movement of the mount comes at the DM's discretion, as though it were an NPC assisting the party.  Perhaps the mount continues to fight, or perhaps it panics and throws its rider or flees.  What does the party do when their defender's warhorse is spooked and bolts, with the defender still clinging to the saddle?  Fun times. ;) or perhaps, conversely, the DM thinks the mount would  stand and fight.  This is one of those case-by-case scenarios where I strongly feel the best course of action is not necessarily that which aids or hinders the players but which tells the most interesting story.

- If a rider is grabbed and the mount tries to move away, wouldn't the character just get dragged out of the saddle?  It seems to me the character would still need to make an attempt to break the grab, or else be pulled from the mount.  Perhaps in that instance a mount would provide a small bonus to the check, much the same way a fellow PC might offer an assist?

Just some ideas.



These ideas are counter to the seeming 4e principle of leaving the player in control of their resources to the greatest extent possible... Not that I disagree with their spirit, but in point of fact, the mount is part of the player's character package, and the player has invested the character's resources in it in most cases.

 

What I've noticed is that nobody targets the mount.  Because you are the bigger threat, the target is generally you.  If they do target the mount, they're somewhat wasting the action. 



I hear a lot of "this mod was easy because we were on mounts and thus xyz", though I then say "well, how did your mount survive when you guys took that AoE from foe_abc?" and they say, "Oh, I didn't think about that."

Players need to be responsible for understanding the mount rules. Most mounts (or summoned things like an Ebon Fly) have really weak defenses outside of the immediate tier in which they were purchased. They tend to have pretty low HPs. AoE, auras, and even a decent multi-attack will almost always kill the things without any real use of resources. If the mount hovers, that also gives prone and falling damage to the rider, which is reason enough to target them (especially as a readied action so you can drop them into the pit/chasm/horrid trap/etc.

I don't take mounts because the game should be about the heroes, not some giant lizard my PC saw for sale at the market. I think the 4E rules are pretty terrible and not worthwhile outside of a specific setting (I could see them work in Dark Sun or in limited use in Spelljammer). The best fix for mounts would be for them to all be in the DMG and be an adventure/encounter option and not something PCs purchase. You rent horses, use the DMG rules for them if combat starts, including the chance that they flee. The king gives you his prized warhorses, which can attack the goblins that ambush you, allowing you to escalate XP and the threat of the encounter, allowing the PCs to take on foes they could not otherwise defeat. The paragon heroes are given flying griffons and head off to the island, for a special aerial battle.

I've only seen a mount at one table I judged, and it was dead in round 1 of the first encounter. I don't think anyone missed it.

Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips!
Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).

They tend to have pretty low HPs

Actually it's quite the opposite, most mounts have pretty high hitpoints. 58 hp for a warhorse or 90 hp for a lizard is nothing to sneeze at. With the high hp but low damage design approach toward monsters in 4e, needing to inflict 90 damage to a riding lizard can easily keep a monster busy for 4 and more rounds despite it's AC pretty much resulting in auto-hits.

AoE, auras, and even a decent multi-attack will almost always kill the things without any real use of resources.

Having to hew through an extra 90 hp is acutally a lot of ressources that could not be directed at the mount's rider (who might have only 70 hp himself).

Since dead mounts are ressurected for free at the end of the mod, even using them for nothing more than having a giant bag of temporary extra hp makes them well worth their price
Regular mounts have low defenses, but they do have tons of hit points.

I use a Figurine of Wondrous Power Ebony Fly myself, and it's great.  It's survived every combat (and we've been good about applying AoEs, auras).  Of course I have impenetrable barding (which just got nerfed), so we'll have to see whether it continues to survive

The figurines are a bit different than normal mounts.  Very low hit points for instance.  But you don't need a feat to get their "mount" ability, which is nice, and they have better command rules.  Of course it costs a daily magic item use and a healing surge, so it should be better than a normal mount in some regards.

We've been primarily using the "you're in all squares at once" rules, and *very* rarely do we ever need to figure out exactly which square I'm in.  If you essentially treat it as "you're now large sized and fly" then the rules for figuring out range, whether you're in a blast, etc..., become a lot easier!  And I fully think that's the intent.

What I've noticed is that nobody targets the mount.  Because you are the bigger threat, the target is generally you.  If they do target the mount, they're somewhat wasting the action. 



I hear a lot of "this mod was easy because we were on mounts and thus xyz", though I then say "well, how did your mount survive when you guys took that AoE from foe_abc?" and they say, "Oh, I didn't think about that."

Players need to be responsible for understanding the mount rules. Most mounts (or summoned things like an Ebon Fly) have really weak defenses outside of the immediate tier in which they were purchased. They tend to have pretty low HPs. AoE, auras, and even a decent multi-attack will almost always kill the things without any real use of resources. If the mount hovers, that also gives prone and falling damage to the rider, which is reason enough to target them (especially as a readied action so you can drop them into the pit/chasm/horrid trap/etc.

I don't take mounts because the game should be about the heroes, not some giant lizard my PC saw for sale at the market. I think the 4E rules are pretty terrible and not worthwhile outside of a specific setting (I could see them work in Dark Sun or in limited use in Spelljammer). The best fix for mounts would be for them to all be in the DMG and be an adventure/encounter option and not something PCs purchase. You rent horses, use the DMG rules for them if combat starts, including the chance that they flee. The king gives you his prized warhorses, which can attack the goblins that ambush you, allowing you to escalate XP and the threat of the encounter, allowing the PCs to take on foes they could not otherwise defeat. The paragon heroes are given flying griffons and head off to the island, for a special aerial battle.

I've only seen a mount at one table I judged, and it was dead in round 1 of the first encounter. I don't think anyone missed it.



Giant Riding Lizard - 90hp, AC18
Elephant - 111hp, AC20

If this got killed in encounter 1, it likely saved a PC from that fate.    My 8th level fighter has 78hp.
Given (even the nerfed) impenetrable barding which gives resist 5 to all damage, the mount is most likely soaking up anywhere from 120-150 hp before dropping, assuming that the cleric doesn't trigger a healing surge for an additional 22+hp.

Your view of the role of a mount in the story is certainly your perogative.  Others might argue that the story shouldn't be about a weapon, or armor, or an animal companion, or a particular combat style.  Others might argue that it should be about the roleplaying (vs. rollplaying).  In reality, 4e D&D is a tactical game, and the mount generally provides a huge tactical advantage, at very little risk.  Even the death of a mount is remidied at the end of the adventure.

Almost forgot... 3 people I know took a Giant Ant as a mount from a recent level 1-4 scenario.  They're loving it.  It hasn't been over-powered or anything (though it has soaked up some attacks that would have otherwise hit a PC), but they just love the extra movement and the "feel" of it.

And to look at it objectively, a Giant Ant (54 hp, +9 vs AC for 1d10+4 dmg + prone) is really good for 1st level PCs.  No doubt about as good as choosing a magic item instead (or perhaps a bit better even).

None of the PCs have Mounted Combat yet, but I believe they're thinking about it.
Almost forgot... 3 people I know took a Giant Ant as a mount from a recent level 1-4 scenario.  They're loving it.  It hasn't been over-powered or anything (though it has soaked up some attacks that would have otherwise hit a PC), but they just love the extra movement and the "feel" of it.



Yup...I took the Giant Ant for my firesoul genasi wizard, in order to become a "mobile artillery platform."  My wizard just hit 5th level, and I'm not under any delusions that the ant will last forever, and it certainly won't be useful in every adventure, but, in the meantime, being able to scuttle around the battlefield is fun.
"Of course [Richard] has a knife. He always has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183, and we're barbarians!" - Eleanor of Aquitaine, "The Lion in Winter"
Almost forgot... 3 people I know took a Giant Ant as a mount from a recent level 1-4 scenario.  They're loving it.  It hasn't been over-powered or anything (though it has soaked up some attacks that would have otherwise hit a PC), but they just love the extra movement and the "feel" of it.



Yup...I took the Giant Ant for my firesoul genasi wizard, in order to become a "mobile artillery platform."  My wizard just hit 5th level, and I'm not under any delusions that the ant will last forever, and it certainly won't be useful in every adventure, but, in the meantime, being able to scuttle around the battlefield is fun.



My character loves his mount (Giant Riding Lizard), and up until the nerf, it was worth every single goldpiece.  I'd say it's still better than the Giant Ant, but I'm looking to buy something better in the future.  (There's that elephant I've had my eye on...). 

I'm curious why you took the Giant Ant as a treasure slot, when almost all of the benefit of the ant could have been realized through a 75gp riding horse.  (Okay, the horse has about 60% of the ant's HP, and one less speed, but it costs 75gp versus 1800gp.)  At the time you took the ant, did you think about the horse, or was it simply a "oh cool, Giant Ant" decision?

THanks
I'm curious why you took the Giant Ant as a treasure slot, when almost all of the benefit of the ant could have been realized through a 75gp riding horse.  (Okay, the horse has about 60% of the ant's HP, and one less speed, but it costs 75gp versus 1800gp.)  At the time you took the ant, did you think about the horse, or was it simply a "oh cool, Giant Ant" decision?



The latter, pretty much.  (Few would accuse me of being an excessive optimizer.)
"Of course [Richard] has a knife. He always has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183, and we're barbarians!" - Eleanor of Aquitaine, "The Lion in Winter"
I'm curious why you took the Giant Ant as a treasure slot, when almost all of the benefit of the ant could have been realized through a 75gp riding horse.  (Okay, the horse has about 60% of the ant's HP, and one less speed, but it costs 75gp versus 1800gp.)  At the time you took the ant, did you think about the horse, or was it simply a "oh cool, Giant Ant" decision?



The latter, pretty much.  (Few would accuse me of being an excessive optimizer.)



It's a perfectly valid reason.  I was just wondering if you saw something that I didn't. 

I'm currently on a long-term path (a couple of levels) to make my Dwarven Battlerager a really good charging fighter.  I've got mounted combat, and the Giant Riding Lizard (now nerfed. Derp).  I'm saving for a Elephant.  And I'm looking at training/retraining to Hunting Wolf Style (use Crushing Surge while charging) and Practiced Rider (mount/dismount as a minor action).  My plan for Hero of Faith evaporated with the rules update, so I trained at 8th level into Berserker's Fury (Barbarian multiclass for the nature skill + the once a day till end of encounter +2 to damage rolls) and Targeted Assault (+2 to attack marked enemies).

Might be fun.  Yeah, I optimize, but I try to have fun doing so.  This guy started out as a glaive fighter, and switched to Mordenkrad (Captain Hammer...), tried Deft Hurler, and trained out of it when he discovered mounts. 



I can't speak for why so few other people use mounts, but in my case it's either because my character is too heavy (dragonborn) or would be tempted to eat the mount for supper (gnoll).

My dwarf has a mount but almost never uses it because most combats take place in a building or dungeon of some sort.  Oddly enough judges in our area take exception to the fact that a character has an elephant sleeping in his 10x10 room at the inn with him.  Go figure. :P  In 3.5 I could make the argument for my paladin's bonded mount that the horse was smarter than the rider and wouldn't freak out going up a flight of stairs doesn't really work for most animals. 

In my experience it's the combination of low carrying capacity, indoor combats and the standard action to mount or dismount (without spending feats) that limits their use.

Allen.
or would be tempted to eat the mount for supper (gnoll).

With the free ressurection for mounts that would actually be a way to be provided a free feast every adventure ;)

With the free ressurection for mounts that would actually be a way to be provided a free feast every adventure ;)



"It miracle!  Me eat magic horse, magic horse come back next morning!  Every time!  It not even mad at me for eating it!"
"Of course [Richard] has a knife. He always has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183, and we're barbarians!" - Eleanor of Aquitaine, "The Lion in Winter"

My dwarf has a mount but almost never uses it because most combats take place in a building or dungeon of some sort.  Oddly enough judges in our area take exception to the fact that a character has an elephant sleeping in his 10x10 room at the inn with him.  Go figure. :P  In 3.5 I could make the argument for my paladin's bonded mount that the horse was smarter than the rider and wouldn't freak out going up a flight of stairs doesn't really work for most animals.



Actually, it's the going down a set of stairs that is more of a problem. At my great grandfather's funeral, someone related a prank he pulled by leading a pair of horses up the stairs in his high school building. Since they really didn't want to go down the stairs, the staff had a heck of a time figuring out how to get the horses down off the second floor.

My dwarf has a mount but almost never uses it because most combats take place in a building or dungeon of some sort.  Oddly enough judges in our area take exception to the fact that a character has an elephant sleeping in his 10x10 room at the inn with him.  Go figure. :P  In 3.5 I could make the argument for my paladin's bonded mount that the horse was smarter than the rider and wouldn't freak out going up a flight of stairs doesn't really work for most animals.



Actually, it's the going down a set of stairs that is more of a problem. At my great grandfather's funeral, someone related a prank he pulled by leading a pair of horses up the stairs in his high school building. Since they really didn't want to go down the stairs, the staff had a heck of a time figuring out how to get the horses down off the second floor.



In game terms, the stairs shouldn't present much of a problem.  The lizards have a climb speed, so it's not even difficult terrain for them.  Though they might have to squeeze (reduce space to 1, move at half speed, grant combat advantage, provoke opportunity attacks) they should still have no real problem.

My dwarf has a mount but almost never uses it because most combats take place in a building or dungeon of some sort.  Oddly enough judges in our area take exception to the fact that a character has an elephant sleeping in his 10x10 room at the inn with him.  Go figure. :P  In 3.5 I could make the argument for my paladin's bonded mount that the horse was smarter than the rider and wouldn't freak out going up a flight of stairs doesn't really work for most animals.



Actually, it's the going down a set of stairs that is more of a problem. At my great grandfather's funeral, someone related a prank he pulled by leading a pair of horses up the stairs in his high school building. Since they really didn't want to go down the stairs, the staff had a heck of a time figuring out how to get the horses down off the second floor.



In game terms, the stairs shouldn't present much of a problem.  The lizards have a climb speed, so it's not even difficult terrain for them.  Though they might have to squeeze (reduce space to 1, move at half speed, grant combat advantage, provoke opportunity attacks) they should still have no real problem.



Yeah, in game terms we'll have to go back to saying that it's stupid to have your rhino/griffon/elephant/whatever sleeping in your room at the inn or eating breakfast with you when the plot device NPC comes crashing through the window.

My dwarf has a mount but almost never uses it because most combats take place in a building or dungeon of some sort.  Oddly enough judges in our area take exception to the fact that a character has an elephant sleeping in his 10x10 room at the inn with him.  Go figure. :P  In 3.5 I could make the argument for my paladin's bonded mount that the horse was smarter than the rider and wouldn't freak out going up a flight of stairs doesn't really work for most animals.



Actually, it's the going down a set of stairs that is more of a problem. At my great grandfather's funeral, someone related a prank he pulled by leading a pair of horses up the stairs in his high school building. Since they really didn't want to go down the stairs, the staff had a heck of a time figuring out how to get the horses down off the second floor.



In game terms, the stairs shouldn't present much of a problem.  The lizards have a climb speed, so it's not even difficult terrain for them.  Though they might have to squeeze (reduce space to 1, move at half speed, grant combat advantage, provoke opportunity attacks) they should still have no real problem.



Yeah, in game terms we'll have to go back to saying that it's stupid to have your rhino/griffon/elephant/whatever sleeping in your room at the inn or eating breakfast with you when the plot device NPC comes crashing through the window.



No, I'd actually be more likely to say that I'm staying out in the stable with him because I don't trust any of the humans/halflings/gnomes not to steal him in the middle of the night, and entirely miss the plot device crashing into a window of the inn looking for me.


Harder rules question would be - if rider is dazed but mount isn't, can mount take a move action, and rider take his standard action.  Or, if rider is immobilized but mount isn't, can mount move, and rider simply remain in saddle and move with mount?  Or, if rider is grabbed, but mount isn't, can mount move outside of reach of grabbing creature, thus ending the grab condition? 




I think you're making a difficult question out of a fairly common sense scenario.

- If the rider is dazed, but the mount isn't, I would consider dazed rules to still apply.  The dazed rider is still, ultimately, in control of the mount.  The rider doesn't currently have the capacity to both control/communicate with the mount and effectively fight, and a mount properly trained for combat conditions isn't going to act without instructions.  If a mount is intelligent enough to think and move independently, I would argue that it becomes the DM's decision as to when and where the mount should move.

- In terms of immobility, I'd argue once again that the movement of the mount comes at the DM's discretion, as though it were an NPC assisting the party.  Perhaps the mount continues to fight, or perhaps it panics and throws its rider or flees.  What does the party do when their defender's warhorse is spooked and bolts, with the defender still clinging to the saddle?  Fun times. ;) or perhaps, conversely, the DM thinks the mount would  stand and fight.  This is one of those case-by-case scenarios where I strongly feel the best course of action is not necessarily that which aids or hinders the players but which tells the most interesting story.



You have to remember that the mount rules treat the mount and rider as a single creature in terms of actions.  So for the dazed issue, it "affects" both of you since you share actions.  IOW, just because you're dazed and your mount isn't you can't take a full set of actions.  Even if you are dismounted.

Re: Immobilized, by RAW, your mount couldn't move either since the rules say YOU can't move from your space.  It's seems silly, but I suppose your mount could move but you woudl stay in the square you are in.  If you're grabbed, as a judge I would say that if I allowed the mount to move, you couldn't move with it (see Immobilized), otherwise it acts as a get out of grab free card. 
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
"It miracle!  Me eat magic horse, magic horse come back next morning!  Every time!  It not even mad at me for eating it!"



Haha, love it!
I love people that buy the lizards and think they can walk on ceilings.  Comes form GM's and players not familiar with the rules.
cite, please?
I love people that buy the lizards and think they can walk on ceilings.  Comes form GM's and players not familiar with the rules.



Well the blade spider made it through errata untouched, and it can certainly climb on ceilings. Gets tremorsense and can still multiattack.