Jump to content

Mounted +5/-5 VS Large Creatures


Recommended Posts

I've always felt that the +5/-5 of Mounted Knights VS Footed enemies should not be considered when fighting large creatures, since this is basically a height modifier.

Why should a mounted knight have an height advantage against something as big as a Dragon (Size 80)?

However, I'm not sure from which size I should make the +5/-5 starting to apply....Maybe a Hag (Size 19) should suffer the modifier (since its size is not far from a big human), but what about Small Giants (Size 25) or Bears (Size 25)?

Edited by Luca Cherstich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Luca Cherstich said:

I've always felt that the +5/-5 of Mounted Knights VS Footed enemies should not be considered when fighting large creatures, since this is basically a height modifier.

Yep. I definitely would not apply that when fighting Giants. At the same time, I am not quite nasty enough to give a -5/+5 modifier for the knights on foot fighting a giant. After all, they can still stab the Giant's hairy legs.

1 hour ago, Luca Cherstich said:

what about Small Giants (Size 25) or Bears (Size 25)?

I think that would be a reasonable point. It is already well beyond the human norm, whereas the Hag (Size 19) could easily be smaller than a big Saxon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Morien said:

Yep. I definitely would not apply that when fighting Giants. At the same time, I am not quite nasty enough to give a -5/+5 modifier for the knights on foot fighting a giant. After all, they can still stab the Giant's hairy legs.

I think that would be a reasonable point. It is already well beyond the human norm, whereas the Hag (Size 19) could easily be smaller than a big Saxon.

So, maybe, let say anything from Size 25 and beyond should get the penalty! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Luca Cherstich said:

So, maybe, let say anything from Size 25 and beyond should get the penalty! 

The other way around. Anything larger than SIZ 25 would not get the penalty when fighting a mounted knight, and the knight wouldn't get a bonus. I could see an argument that SIZ 25 should apply only for bipedal enemies (including bears), while quadrupedal enemies might require a higher size (although big cats would likely still be quite able to leap at the horseman without penalties; a big boar could not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Morien said:

The other way around. Anything larger than SIZ 25 would not get the penalty when fighting a mounted knight, and the knight wouldn't get a bonus. I could see an argument that SIZ 25 should apply only for bipedal enemies (including bears), while quadrupedal enemies might require a higher size (although big cats would likely still be quite able to leap at the horseman without penalties; a big boar could not).

Yes you are right...I just miss-typed forgetting to add the "NOT" get the penalty!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is some merit to this, but only after a certain point.  Going by real world physics, a proportionally large giant, with twice the height and reach of a man, would weight about 8 times as much, or approximately 22 points of SIZ greater. 

A SIZ 25 Giant is probably less than 8' tall and might not be big enough t negate the height or reach advantage on a mounted knight. Especially if the knight himself is big and/or mounted on a larger warhorse. For instance, consider a SIZ 25 giant vs. a SIZ 21 Saxon PK. The giant is probably only a few inches taller, and if he got an advantage against the Saxon, then why doesn't the Saxon get that advantage against Brits, Romans, and Picts?

 

IMO there should probably be a minimum  SIZ threshold, as a difference between the two combatants for the height and/or reach modifiers to kick in.  At least 10 points, although I think 15, 20, or even 25 would work out better. That way the spread would be wide enough to encompass most humans, and make most animals too small to get a height bonus (most aren't taller than people), while still leaving the door open for the really big creatures and monsters, such as elephants, giants and dragons. 

 

 

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

IMO there should probably be a minimum  SIZ threshold, as a difference between the two combatants for the height and/or reach modifiers to kick in.  At least 10 points, although I think 15, 20, or even 25 would work out better. That way the spread would be wide enough to encompass most humans, and make most animals too small to get a height bonus (most aren't taller than people), while still leaving the door open for the really big creatures and monsters, such as elephants, giants and dragons. 

Good idea! This size difference makes sense, but I'm yet to understand where the right threshold value should be.

Edited by Luca Cherstich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Luca Cherstich said:

Good idea! This size difference makes sense, but I'm yet to understand where the right threshold value should be.

Keep it simple. After all, it probably won't matter if the rider is an inch or two shorter: it certainly doesn't in the basic rules. So if SIZ 25 doesn't work, use SIZ 30. That is already much bigger than a human, and definitely beyond the size that any human character is likely to get to.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it helps...

  • Standard giants ignore the lance charge bonus as well (due to reach) per the giant description in KAP
  • I've negated and even reversed the height modifier depending on the SIZ/height of the creature, or if it can fly.
  • I did up a table of human/giant heights based upon the SIZ values given in the books, the weights given in the SIZ table, the cube-square law (i.e. twice the weight means 1.26 times the height), as well as in cubits to account for the mythical 12 cubic tall Gogmagog of the HRB. It might help to give some ballpark figures to correlate SIZ and height. If anyone is interested let me know.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tizun Thane said:

in the book of armies, it is said that the (little) giants of the army of Lucius ignore the height modifier as well.

Yep: "Great Mace (15): 7d6 (no mounted bonus/penalty!)"

Given the low damage, these Giants cannot be too big.

However, there is also this mention in the main text (emphasis mine): "They are of size sufficient to cancel any mounted height bonus, or personal shortness penalty." Now, that to me, sounds like that they would be cancelling the Lance vs. Non-Lance bonus, too.

EDIT: Hmm. Now I am not that sure about that. Since the Lance gives a BONUS to the Lance wielder, not a penalty to the Non-Lance user. So maybe it is just referring to the same +5/-5 modifier.

Edited by Morien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Morien said:

Yep: "Great Mace (15): 7d6 (no mounted bonus/penalty!)"

Given the low damage, these Giants cannot be too big.

However, there is also this mention in the main text (emphasis mine): "They are of size sufficient to cancel any mounted height bonus, or personal shortness penalty."

Since a medieval horse is about 4'-5' tall at the shoulders, a rider would probably be about 7-8' tall, which matches up pretty close to the height of a small giant.

 

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...