# Anemic Horses



## darkadelphia (Sep 2, 2008)

My players ambushed a column of mounted soldiers escorting an evil noblewomen through the woods in our last session.  The encounter turned out being very easy due to the PCs riding out ahead and using their skills to find the perfect ambush point and rigging the bridge to give way beneath the noblewoman's wagon.  It's an embarrassing way to go.

Regardless, after most of the encounter had been defeated, the noblewoman had managed to work her way up out of the ravine and wanted to have the leader of her guards carry her away on horseback.  I was shocked to discover that riding horses have only a capacity of 237 lbs and warhorses only 262 lbs before they are *slowed*.  That's pretty lousy for those 220-320 lb Dragonborn and means that most medium sized fighters can't even pick up their halfling buddy and race off to save the day.

I know that 4e's design philosophy tries to prevent getting something for nothing/little (backgrounds notwithstanding), and, as such, horses already give PCs a big speed boost and perhaps shouldn't dramatically increase their carrying capacity, but the fact that many characters are slower when mounted seems pointless and perhaps unintended.


----------



## darkadelphia (Sep 2, 2008)

This seems kind of extreme, but it seems to me that any character should be able to carry their max load and jump on a horse anytime during heroic tier and not have to worry about it.  That means a riding horse would have to be able to carry 550 lbs unencumbered (max weight dragonborn plus 220 lbs of gear for max strength at level 10).


----------



## Keenath (Sep 2, 2008)

In real life, a good rule of thumb is that a horse can safely carry between one-fifth and one-sixth of its weight for competitive or hard riding, and up to about 30% for light duty or travel.  Obviously this varies pretty widely depending on the specific breed and the horse's condition, but it's a good starting point.

Given that, a normal riding horse that weighs between 1000 and 1200 pounds can only carry maybe 200 to 250 pounds in combat situations.  A warhorse could probably carry more than that, but I still wouldn't expect to see it carrying more than 300 pounds outside of light travel.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Sep 2, 2008)

I noticed this right away, and it's very dumb. Easily fixed, though: give quadrupeds back their x4 carrying capacity. Then, a warhorse isn't slowed until 720 lbs. Sounds about right to me.


----------



## Syrsuro (Sep 2, 2008)

It's not an anemic horse, it's a _massive _(dragonborn) character.


1) _A light load for a heavy warhorse in 3.5 was 300# (and only 150# for a light riding horse)._ And a light load for a lightwarhorse was 230#. Thus, a 3.5 warhorse might well also be slowed trying to carry your Dragonborn. The 4E warhorse (262#) is right in between the light and heavy warhorse from 3.5. The 4E riding horse can actually carry MORE than the 3.5 light riding horse. Your Dragonborn wouldn't have been able to ride a 3.5 warhorse either. (And I don't know where that 720# number came from).

2) The average _human _fighter weighs less than 200 pounds. That allows him to ride a horse in full gear with no problem. If you are already large, grabbing your halfling buddy ought to slow the horse. (That said, I would probably allow for a range of horses, some of which are slower but can carry more. But then again, I don't let the fact that there is only one 'warhorse' limit me and I find such a ruling better than giving the horses ludicrous carry weights.

3) Dragonborn don't ride horses. Dragonborn ride Rage Drakes. 
I can't find a carry weight for a Rage Drake, but I'd have no problem raising their weight capacity by 100# over a horse to allow them to carry a dragonborn.

Carl


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Sep 2, 2008)

Syrsuro said:


> It's not an anemic horse, it's a _massive _(dragonborn) character.
> 
> 
> 1) _A light load for a heavy warhorse in 3.5 was 300# (and only 150# for a light riding horse)._ And a light load for a lightwarhorse was 230#. Thus, a 3.5 warhorse might well also be slowed trying to carry your Dragonborn. The 4E warhorse (262#) is right in between the light and heavy warhorse from 3.5. The 4E riding horse can actually carry MORE than the 3.5 light riding horse. Your Dragonborn wouldn't have been able to ride a 3.5 warhorse either. (And I don't know where that 720# number came from).
> ...




You do realize "slowed" means your speed gets cut down to 2 squares? IE you're carrying something so heavy that you're moving less than half your normal speed?

1) "That number" came from a 4e warhorse's load figure (18 x 10) which was multiplied by 4 to produce 720. I suggested this because it was done in 3rd edition, and in 3rd edition horses didn't get slowed to less than half speed because a big dude jumped on top.

2) Says who? I'm a weightlifter. I weigh 185 lbs. I've calculated my 3rd edition Str score at 14, but 4e is much harder to gauge with "real life" so I honestly don't know; we'll just say it's 14 for argument's sake. So it stands to reason that a guy with 16 strength (your average human fighter) is going to weigh at least 200 lbs, if not more.

Also, dragonborn are not large.

3) This point invalidated the rest of your post entirely. If you're going to just slap on an extra hundred pounds of carrying capacity "just because" then why are you even arguing about it? That's silly.


----------



## Syrsuro (Sep 2, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> You do realize "slowed" means your speed gets cut down to 2 squares? IE you're carrying something so heavy that you're moving less than half your normal speed?



Yes. 



> 1) "That number" came from a 4e warhorse's load figure (18 x 10) which was multiplied by 4 to produce 720. I suggested this because it was done in 3rd edition, and in 3rd edition horses didn't get slowed to less than half speed because a big dude jumped on top.



Actually, in 3.5 the proper multiplier for a Large creature is 3x, not 4x. 

And the strength of a warhorse in 4E is 21, not 18 (and a riding horse is 19).

And you can't compare the _normal load_ of 4E to the _light load_ of 3.5. 4E has simplified loads down to normal, heavy and drag and gotten rid of the medium and stagger weights. Based on the numbers, the normal load is heavier than the light load and lighter than the medium load.

Thus, the 4E normal load of a horse is 210 pounds while the 3.5 light load is 153 pounds and the medium load is 306 pounds. So to apply the 3.5 formula to the 4E numbers, you need to take roughly 3/4 of the normal load and multiply that by 3 - or, essentially, double (or, to be more precise, take 2.25x) the normal load to get a 3.5 quadrupeds normal load (and double that again for their heavy load).

This gives you around 450 pounds for the 3.5 'heavy load' of a 4E heavy warhorse. 

And, of course, it is a fallacy to use the 3.5 multiplier with the 4E Str because they most likely increased the strengths of the quadropeds to get them to the final carry weight they wanted using the 4E formula (aside: quadruped carry weights are increased 25% in 4E). If you use the 3.5 str (which is 18) and do the same process you get a carry weight of 405#.

Thus I can see a lot of numbers being possible, but none of them are 720. 

But of course, that is all based on the questionable assumption that horses can carry three times as much as a human of the same strength and it requires ignoring the fact that they most likely choose the strength value of a horse to end up at exactly the carry value they wanted in the first place (in both systems).

But the bottom line really is:  Is the weight limit they put in place logical considering real world limits? (Yes)  Does it make sense as a game restriction (Yes).  Does it fit with the genre and its expectations (Yes).  Does it impose restrictions on the character that make the game more fun(Yes).  Was it silly for a 3.5 horse to be only slightly slowed carrying 900# (Absolutely)



> 2) Says who? I'm a weightlifter. I weigh 185 lbs. I've calculated my 3rd edition Str score at 14, but 4e is much harder to gauge with "real life" so I honestly don't know; we'll just say it's 14 for argument's sake. So it stands to reason that a guy with 16 strength (your average human fighter) is going to weigh at least 200 lbs, if not more.
> 
> Also, dragonborn are not large.




Your weight logic isn't. But I don't argue that a human can easily be over 200#. Heck, I'm over 200#.

And the _lightest_ adult dragonborn weighs in at 220 (as per the DMG) and their weights go up to 320. They may not be 'large' as a specific game term. But they average 100# heavier than a human.


Just out of curiosity, how fast do you move carrying 140 pounds?



> 3) This point invalidated the rest of your post entirely. If you're going to just slap on an extra hundred pounds of carrying capacity "just because" then why are you even arguing about it? That's silly.




I'm not 'slapping on an extra hundred pounds of carrying capacity. I'm making a ruling on a fact that is not in the books, based on given information in order to create a ruling that is consistant with the rules as they exist (including the fact that Rage Drakes appear in the Dragonborn encounter and are mounts according to the MM and the fact that horses are not appropriate mounts for dragonborn - as already noted in this thread).

If I need a justification it would be that their different body shape (more squat, lower to the ground and - very importantly - massive legs compared to the legs of a horse) enable them to carry far more weight. (Horses have very thin legs for their size which is why they are so susceptible to leg injuries such as befell Eight Belles.)

"Slapping on extra carrying capacity" is what you proposed.

I hope you can see the difference.

Carl


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 2, 2008)

I want to say something...first let me explain I am a BIG guy...over 400lbs, and my dad is bigger then me. He raises horses down in GA. He can't ride the horses he raises though...he is too big. When I was younger (and smaller) I learned to ride myself, and to this day I know how, but it would take a big old clydesdale to hold me. So those numbers might be pretty close to right...although I do feel they are atleast a little low.


----------



## Syrsuro (Sep 2, 2008)

Relevant Web Site: http://www.frontrangefrenzy.com/ridinghorses/how-much-can-a-horse-carry.html

Or this: http://www.horsesring.com/forums/ge...-much-weight-can-your-horse-safely-carry.html

From the latter source: 



> "If you take a 220-pound person, add in a Western saddle, plus everything else you carry, then head out for a whole day on the trails, you could be stressing that horse quite a lot."
> 
> ....
> seven Arabian geldings and mares were trained to walk and trot along a level fence line in response to voice commands. They were timed as they walked and trotted the distance unburdened as well as with a saddle weighted with lead shot. The saddle and lead together weighed 85 kilograms (about 187 pounds), which amounted to about 19 percent of the horses' body weights. Not surprisingly, the additional weight caused horses to move more slowly, reducing speed from about 7.4 mph to about 7 mph.
> ...





Moving on, and applying the numbers from the above:


Some have said that the typical heavy war horse was a Percheron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percheron , although many more sites say that most destriers were not that large. So lets say that a heavy war horse is a Percheron while smaller warhorses are a slightly smaller (although still very large) breed. (And since 4E doesn't have a 'heavy' warhorse who is to say that we shouldn't be doing all these comparisons to the 3.5 light warhorse.)


The average Percheron weighs around 1,900#s. So lets say 2000. .That would give them a carry weight (by the above web sites) of around 400# (assuming the formula is linear).

But a horse more the size of a Friesian horse is probably more correct. An average Friesian horse weighs considerably less (1300 - 1600#) and would have a carry weight (by the above formula) of less than 300#.

Another interesting relevant quote: http://www.bfi.org/?q=node/410 by Buckminster Fuller (of all people).



> Millennia after the first club-swinging Oriental horseman claimed land ownership, the man on the horse westbound from the Orient to Europe became helmeted and armored in metal. Due to the horses' weight-carrying limit and the penalty of weight on the horses' speed, the most effective of the horse and armored riders was, like the present-day jockey, the wiry, strong, little man. Inspection of the European museums' armor discloses the diminutive size of the most successful knights.



Note that the weight of a single rider is causing a noticeable loss of mobility. Nevermind what would happen if you put three-four people (720!?) on the back.

Or this from Elements of Military Art and Science (H. Wagner Halleck, 1862, p. 149)


> The modern cavalry is much lighter, and, by dispensing with armor, shields, etc., it can move with much greater rapidity. A modern cavalry horse carries a weight of from two hundred and fifty to three hundred pounds. [A table follows which breaks this down into rider weight, arms and equipment weight, horse equipment and two days rations.]



The point here being that we again see the idea that weight beyond 250-300#s will significantly decrease its speed. Not too far off from the 262# number for the 4E horse.



But to suggest that a horse can routinely carry 720# is, imho, incomprehensible. Even in a fantasy game.

(And the irony of this is that I am a gamist and generally ignore appeals to 'reality'. But in this case, I think it is patently obvious that the 'right answer' is that a horse can carry the weight of its typical intended rider, plus his gear. And that Dragonborn are not the intended riders of horses - they are too big).

Bottom Line (as I see it): The weights in the book are logical and consistant and they work just fine. And they represent the average warhorse. If the player needs a larger horse (lets say a Percheron rather than a Friesian horse) he can buy it, it would just cost a bit extra.

But the odds are that a typically sized dragonborn would still be too large for a horse. Dragonborn don't ride horses (imho, of course), just as humans don't usually ride ponies.

Besides:  A dragonborn on a drake is just cooler anyway.

Carl


----------



## Klaus (Sep 2, 2008)

darkadelphia said:


> My players ambushed a column of mounted soldiers escorting an evil noblewomen through the woods in our last session.  The encounter turned out being very easy due to the PCs riding out ahead and using their skills to find the perfect ambush point and rigging the bridge to give way beneath the noblewoman's wagon.  It's an embarrassing way to go.
> 
> Regardless, after most of the encounter had been defeated, the noblewoman had managed to work her way up out of the ravine and wanted to have the leader of her guards carry her away on horseback.  I was shocked to discover that riding horses have only a capacity of 237 lbs and warhorses only 262 lbs before they are *slowed*.  That's pretty lousy for those 220-320 lb Dragonborn and means that most medium sized fighters can't even pick up their halfling buddy and race off to save the day.
> 
> I know that 4e's design philosophy tries to prevent getting something for nothing/little (backgrounds notwithstanding), and, as such, horses already give PCs a big speed boost and perhaps shouldn't dramatically increase their carrying capacity, but the fact that many characters are slower when mounted seems pointless and perhaps unintended.



Dragonborn are heavy characters, specially when coupled with armor and weapons. For them, it's warhorses, rage drakes or walking.


----------



## darkadelphia (Sep 2, 2008)

I am not so concerned about what horses can really carry, I'm concerned about the fact that Dragonborn have a hidden disadvantage (which is against the design philosophy of 4e where everything is supposed to be up front).  It will likely be a level or two before the PCs can easily afford riding horses and longer before they can afford warhorses.  And Rage Drakes?  There's no guide on how much they should cost, but non-combatant riding horses cost 75 GP and are level 1, combat-capable warhorses cost 680 gp and are level 3.  So, a Rage Drake must cost at least 1,000 gp.  Further, Rage Drakes have the same carrying capacity as a riding horse anyway!

I think that all player races should be able to easily get mounts during early heroic tier.  Further, I'd prefer for it to be horses, to save the coolness of exotic mounts for paragon tier.  It would be one thing if going over load reduced speed by one, but reducing them to slowed is ridiculous.  It means the majority of medium sized defender types will be faster on foot once they've accumulated any serious amount of gear.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 2, 2008)

When you said warhorses cost 680 gp, my first thought was "Hey, I recognize that number." And right, that's the cost of a level 3 item - and a warhorse is a level 3 monster. Funny how that works out.

Given that, I'd put the cost of a rage drake at 1,000 gp.


----------



## eamon (Sep 2, 2008)

darkadelphia said:


> I am not so concerned about what horses can really carry, I'm concerned about the fact that Dragonborn have a hidden disadvantage (which is against the design philosophy of 4e where everything is supposed to be up front).  It will likely be a level or two before the PCs can easily afford riding horses and longer before they can afford warhorses.  And Rage Drakes?  There's no guide on how much they should cost, but non-combatant riding horses cost 75 GP and are level 1, combat-capable warhorses cost 680 gp and are level 3.  So, a Rage Drake must cost at least 1,000 gp.  Further, Rage Drakes have the same carrying capacity as a riding horse anyway!




As long as the disadvantages are subtle, there's no problem with hidden disadvantages.  I'd call it flavor.  Seriously, if you demand all races be have no drawbacks beyond the immediately obvious; you might as well demand that all races be identical in all respects beyond what fits on a single page.

A party without an eladrin may find it much more difficult to scale walls and small cliffs.  A party without a halfling has no one to squeeze through small holes.

It's a minor problem, I think.  I'd propose that you role-play a special breed of horses which the dragonborn have bred over the centuries, with a greater carrying capacity.  Increase the price of the mount by a level or two, and by done with it.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 2, 2008)

Yeah, RPGs rarely get the right mix of _what can't horse do_, _what can a horse do_ and _what can a horse do and then drop dead_. It is a shame, but rarely are there decent rules for riding horses to death  . Though the ''spurring rules" for 3E mounts could be really amusing  , even though those focused on killing the mount mid combat, rather than through overland movement.

http://www.juliaross.net/horsefax.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/pop_print.shtml?content_type=article&content_type_id=321133


----------



## Shabe (Sep 2, 2008)

Thinking about it I quite like the fact Dragonborn need to go on very strong warhorses or nothing, I think its quite cool to have these noble big strong warriors walk or travel in the back of the cart for a while at lower levels or maybe even for most of their career.

Of course they could always ride small war elephants  or camels who can apparently carry 330lbs quite comfortably and 990 at an extreme seems like quite a lot to me http://www.arab.net/camels/ but they're probably a lot slower


----------



## darkadelphia (Sep 2, 2008)

The big thing is, it's awfully lousy for the whole party to suffer because of one player's choice of race.  A single Dragonborn party member significantly hampers the party's overland mobility from levels 1-5.  It's like playing a Dwarf in AD&D when they used to move half as fast as everyone else


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Sep 2, 2008)

Syrsuro said:


> Your weight logic isn't. But I don't argue that a human can easily be over 200#. Heck, I'm over 200#.
> 
> And the _lightest_ adult dragonborn weighs in at 220 (as per the DMG) and their weights go up to 320. They may not be 'large' as a specific game term. But they average 100# heavier than a human.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, how fast do you move carrying 140 pounds?




sez you. If I can press 175 lbs over my head, but I can't press 300, it's because I don't have enough muscle. And given what I know about muscle and how and why it weighs several times more than fat, needing another 15 lbs. of it to almost double that figure is pretty close to fact (although looking at this chart now, that'd be the jump from 14 to 18). But really, 18 str is about the average for a D&D fighter (I'd say it's 17, honestly). I can't imagine a PC putting a 14 into their main stat anymore.

I honestly don't know how fast I move, but it's not less than half my original speed. But it also hampers my jumping ability a LOT (because I often do jump squats with 135 lbs strapped on and I only get about six inches off the ground) more than what D&D leads you to believe. D&D strength doesn't make any sense, and it really shouldn't, but stronger people weigh more, and that is a fact. That's all I was pointing out.




> I'm not 'slapping on an extra hundred pounds of carrying capacity. I'm making a ruling on a fact that is not in the books, based on given information in order to create a ruling that is consistant with the rules as they exist (including the fact that Rage Drakes appear in the Dragonborn encounter and are mounts according to the MM and the fact that horses are not appropriate mounts for dragonborn - as already noted in this thread).
> 
> If I need a justification it would be that their different body shape (more squat, lower to the ground and - very importantly - massive legs compared to the legs of a horse) enable them to carry far more weight. (Horses have very thin legs for their size which is why they are so susceptible to leg injuries such as befell Eight Belles.)
> 
> ...




No, I can't see the difference, because it's the same thing. I suggested slapping on extra capacity for a horse. You suggested slapping on extra capacity for your drake. You want to pretend like you're not slapping it on because you have "reasons" for why it should be a certain way. I do, too. I think a party of PCs should be able to walk into a town and ride away with mounts, and not have to say "aw crap, the dragonborn is too fat to come along" and also not have to say "oh, there just so happens to be a rage drake corralled with all the horses, and for some reason he hasn't devoured every last one of them". We put the dragonborn on a massive clydsedale and called it a day.

You can't just state your opinion and use that for ammunition in an argument. You literally said "If drakes aren't strong enough to carry dragonborn, I will make them that way, because that's what I want". And while that is totally fine (and I even agree with you), that is certainly not a valid argument as to why I can't do the same thing with a horse.

EDIT: You also claim that these things are "facts", which is laughable. It's a fact that horses are not appropriate mounts for dragonborn? Really? No, I don't think so. It's unlikely as written but it's certainly not inappropriate and it's definitely not a fact.



			
				Shabe said:
			
		

> Thinking about it I quite like the fact Dragonborn need to go on very strong warhorses or nothing, I think its quite cool to have these noble big strong warriors walk or travel in the back of the cart for a while at lower levels or maybe even for most of their career.




While I agree with you, that's house rules. Horses can't carry dragonborn unless they are exceptionally small, or unless you as DM increase their carrying capacity (which is what I did). So that's not really a fact, it's just a change.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 2, 2008)

darkadelphia said:


> The big thing is, it's awfully lousy for the whole party to suffer because of one player's choice of race.  A single Dragonborn party member significantly hampers the party's overland mobility from levels 1-5.  It's like playing a Dwarf in AD&D when they used to move half as fast as everyone else



And I think it is lousy for those with strengths in the 17+ range to have weights under 200 lbs on their character sheets. Folks that can haul what their STR scores let them do are not light at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Strongest_Man#Commonly_contested_events

While scaling for race is needed, any medium biped the in the top 1% of strenght scores for it's race SHOULD be a burden for a normal mount.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 2, 2008)

Having a Riding Moose would solve all of these Problems!


----------



## Khime (Sep 2, 2008)

Slaved said:


> Having a Riding Moose would solve all of these Problems!



Be Kareful! Møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...

A Møøse once bit my sister ...

No realli!  She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies:  "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink".

*We apologise for the fault in this reply.  Those responsible have been sacked.*


----------



## Klaus (Sep 2, 2008)

darkadelphia said:


> I am not so concerned about what horses can really carry, I'm concerned about the fact that Dragonborn have a hidden disadvantage (which is against the design philosophy of 4e where everything is supposed to be up front).  It will likely be a level or two before the PCs can easily afford riding horses and longer before they can afford warhorses.  And Rage Drakes?  There's no guide on how much they should cost, but non-combatant riding horses cost 75 GP and are level 1, combat-capable warhorses cost 680 gp and are level 3.  So, a Rage Drake must cost at least 1,000 gp.  Further, Rage Drakes have the same carrying capacity as a riding horse anyway!
> 
> I think that all player races should be able to easily get mounts during early heroic tier.  Further, I'd prefer for it to be horses, to save the coolness of exotic mounts for paragon tier.  It would be one thing if going over load reduced speed by one, but reducing them to slowed is ridiculous.  It means the majority of medium sized defender types will be faster on foot once they've accumulated any serious amount of gear.



Afford? Throw a Human Guard (level 3) and a warhorse (Level 3) at the party. If the party declares it's trying not to kill the horse, it is merely unconscous at 0 hp. After it is healed, use a simple skill challenge (skills: Nature, Insight, Heal) for the party to gain the horse's confidence. If they succeed, they have a new warhorse.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 2, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> I can't imagine a PC putting a 14 into their main stat anymore.




Maul Fighter in my new campaign chose to have Str 13 and Con 18 - because he wanted lots of hit points and knew that Con would help him with maul-specific powers in the future.

_- helping the imagination since 1999 -_

Cheers


----------



## Syrsuro (Sep 3, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> I can press 175 lbs over my head, but I can't press 300, it's because I don't have enough muscle. And given what I know about muscle and how and why it weighs several times more than fat, needing another 15 lbs. of it to almost double that figure is pretty close to fact (although looking at this chart now, that'd be the jump from 14 to 18). But really, 18 str is about the average for a D&D fighter (I'd say it's 17, honestly). I can't imagine a PC putting a 14 into their main stat anymore.



You are right.  If the weight of characters was actually in any way related to their strength, the average fighter would weigh 220#.  _But in reality D&D it does not. _ In reality (in my experience) most players give their characters weights that are 200# or lower. 

Especially when the PHB lists the weight range for humans as 135 to 220 pounds, putting weights over 200# at the very high end of the range.</p>

It was this tendency that led to my assertion about the weight of the average fighter - not assumptions as to what the real-world equivalent strength would weigh as that is irrelevant to the game rules.


> No, I can't see the difference, because it's the same thing. I suggested slapping on extra capacity for a horse. You suggested slapping on extra capacity for your drake.



So, you really don't see the difference between making a ruling on facts that are not part of the RAW (the weight capacity of a Rage Drake) versus making changes to the rules as they are written.  _Really_.  You don't see a difference.  


Both are certainly allowed, but they differ significantly in the extent to which they are 'changing' the rules (technically, my approach doesn't change a single rule of the game).
I'm all for house rules.  I just don't agree either with the OP that there is a problem or with your approach.  (If you had suggested adding 100# to the carry weight I would have agreed that was a valid approach.  It was the ludicrous 720# that got my attention, as well as the later mistaken logic - suggesting changing the overall formula (crossing into *major* overhaul of the gamerules) behind that number into a formula that wasn't correct in any version).



> You can't just state your opinion and use that for ammunition in an argument. You literally said "If drakes aren't strong enough to carry dragonborn, I will make them that way, because that's what I want". And while that is totally fine (and I even agree with you), that is certainly not a valid argument as to why I can't do the same thing with a horse.



Actually, I said quite a bit more than that.  I gave facts as support FOR my opinion (information from external sources on the real-world weight capacity of horses, the fact that Rage Drakes are included in Dragonborn encounters, differences in Rage Drake anatomy (based on the visual image in the text), etc.)



> EDIT: You also claim that these things are "facts", which is laughable. It's a fact that horses are not appropriate mounts for dragonborn? Really? No, I don't think so. It's unlikely as written but it's certainly not inappropriate and it's definitely not a fact.



Actually, I think I was for the most part pretty clear about what was fact and was inference from that fact.  

  Ok, when I stated that Dragonborn on Rage Drakes were cooler I didn't explicitely clarify that that part was opinion - but I thought that was implied.</p>
Carl


----------



## darkadelphia (Sep 3, 2008)

> So, you really don't see the difference between making a ruling on facts that are not part of the RAW (the weight capacity of a Rage Drake) versus making changes to the rules as they are written. _Really_.  You don't see a difference.




There are rules for the capacity of a Rage Drake.  A quadruped can carry its strength x 12.5 before it is slowed.  A Rage Drake has the same strength score as a riding horse.


----------



## Syrsuro (Sep 3, 2008)

darkadelphia said:


> There are rules for the capacity of a Rage Drake.  A quadruped can carry its strength x 12.5 before it is slowed.  A Rage Drake has the same strength score as a riding horse.




You're right.  I hadn't put two and two together yet to arrive at four. 

Ok, _now_ I will consider crossing over from 'ruling' to 'house rule' and rule that rage drakes have a higher carry capacity than a horse.    It's not final yet, I have to look over the other mounts first and see what they look ike.  But I still like Rage Drakes (or some kind of drake) as the typical dragonborn mount.

I don't object to house rules - in fact I think they are what make the game work as the official rules tend to be generic and devoid of flavor.

But they sure as heck ain't gonna carry 720#s.  

And I hold to my original position which is that horses, due to their anatomy and physiology (especially the spindly legs) ought to be on the low end as far as what they can carry for their strength and can't carry Dragonborn.

A rule that raises the carry weight of a Rage Drake but leaves that of a horse the same fits the twin requirements I like in a house rule:

It passes the 'reasonableness' check - it fits with the players expectations of what is possible based on their real-world own experience AND (more importantly imho) it is cool.  Dragonborn, as massive creatures in their own right, eschewing the puny horses humans ride for massive reptilian creatures is just cool (imho, of course).


Removing the restriction on horses just changes the rules in a way that  makes horses into an even more generic mount without adding any 'cool' (imho).  So I don't see it as gaining anything to make it worth making the change, imho. Its just more fun, again - imho - to play in a world where there the differences between the races amount to more than just a word on a sheet and few racial abilities.

Carl


----------



## Patlin (Sep 3, 2008)

Klaus said:


> Dragonborn are heavy characters, specially when coupled with armor and weapons. For them, it's warhorses, rage drakes or walking.




How about a Dragonborn Charioteer? Possibly a warhorse with an enchanted saddle?

Looking forward to Adventurer's Vault.


----------



## darkadelphia (Sep 3, 2008)

As a note for everyone suggesting using exotic mounts--think about this.  I did the math on how much mounts of any given level should be able to carry based on DMG 184.  If a 300 lb dragonborn runs around naked, it needs something with 24 strength to carry it around, i.e. a level 16 quadrupedal brute.  Btb mount rules mean Dragonborn have to walk until they're ready to leave the material world and shake the foundations of the universe.  I rest my case.  ;-)  Proposed house rule--when mounted, a character is assumed to be carrying all the gear on the mount.  The mount shares whatever encumbrance category the rider has.  Unrealistic?  Yes, it means a halfling wizard's horse carries far less than a dragonborn fighter.  But, it's superior, imo, because it takes away all of the hidden punishments for choices the PCs don't fully understand at character creation.


----------



## Syrsuro (Sep 3, 2008)

darkadelphia said:


> As a note for everyone suggesting using exotic mounts--think about this.  I did the math on how much mounts of any given level should be able to carry based on DMG 184.  If a 300 lb dragonborn runs around naked, it needs something with 24 strength to carry it around, i.e. a level 16 quadrupedal brute.  Btb mount rules mean Dragonborn have to walk until they're ready to leave the material world and shake the foundations of the universe.  I rest my case.  ;-)  Proposed house rule--when mounted, a character is assumed to be carrying all the gear on the mount.  The mount shares whatever encumbrance category the rider has.  Unrealistic?  Yes, it means a halfling wizard's horse carries far less than a dragonborn fighter.  But, it's superior, imo, because it takes away all of the hidden punishments for choices the PCs don't fully understand at character creation.




I find your rule wording ambiguous.


"when mounted, a character is assumed to be carrying all the gear on the mount. The mount shares whatever encumbrance category the rider has."


Do you mean:  "When mounted, a character is assumed to be carrying all of his own gear as well as all gear that is on the horse, and the encumbrance of the horse and rider together is based on the character's strength"


Or do you mean:  "When mounted, a character is assumed to be using the horse to carry all his gear.  The encumbrance of the horse and rider together is that of the character."


Or do you mean:  "When mounted, the character's gear is not counted against the weight on the horse, only the actual weight of the character itself.  The horse and rider together use the rider's encumbrance."


Or, finally, do you mean:  "When mounted, the character's gear is not counted against the weight on the horse, only the actual weight of the character itself.  The horse and rider together use the worst of the two encumbrance ratings."





And whichever you are describing - how would you treat a situation such as the one that started this where two people are riding on the same horse.Carl


----------



## On Puget Sound (Sep 3, 2008)

Magic Item: Dragonborn Saddle - Level 2

Effect: A mount wearing this saddle can carry twice the weight its strength would normally allow.

problem solved?


----------



## Syrsuro (Sep 3, 2008)

On Puget Sound said:


> Magic Item: Dragonborn Saddle - Level 2
> 
> Effect: A mount wearing this saddle can carry twice the weight its strength would normally allow.
> 
> problem solved?





Sure  - a magic item fix works as well.  Not as cool as a rage drake imho, but it definately works. 
Frankly - any solution that follows the maxim of Specific overrides General is will work.  In 3.5, the way to fix a problem was to change the underlying rules because the PCs, the monsters, everything was expected to follow the same set of rigid and unyielding rules.  Fortunately, in 4E that is no longer the case, and instead the general rules are there as a jumping off point - and no single creature is necessarily bound by them, but instead can have specific rules which apply to them according to whatever makes for a fun game.   
Increase the carry weight of all quadrupeds?  Not a good idea (imho, of course) as it has global effects across the entire game and is thus 'overwhelming force' when applied to a very specific problem. 
Recognize that Dragonborn have problems riding a horse and increase the carry weight of a single mount type (either horse or rage drake) so that they can ride something? Much better, imho, as it applies a specific fix and doesn't change anything outside of what needs to be changed.  (The fact that I prefer a rage drake - and like the idea of rage drakes being associated with Dragonborn just as Dire Boars are associated with Dwarves - is less important than the fact that there is no reason to change anything beyond the carry capacity of a single type of mount to fix this problem.) 
Create a magic item  (or a feat or whatever) to get around the specific problem?  Another decent solution (although personally, I don't think inventing an item  is preferable to modifying a mount to fill the need because although it works for the PC, it doesn't really address the question of what all the other Dragonborn ride in their native lands unless this saddle is commonplace.   
What doesn't work, imho, is a fix that ignores that maxim and instead takes the approach of using the sledgehammer of instituting a global fix (like increasing the carry weight formula for all quadrupeds) to solve a narrowly focused problem. 

Carl


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 3, 2008)

Personally I quite like the flavour of Dragonborn who just don't ride horses because they are too heavy. Would warforged come into the same category BTW?

It adds a distinctiveness which I like.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 3, 2008)

darkadelphia said:


> As a note for everyone suggesting using exotic mounts--think about this.  I did the math on how much mounts of any given level should be able to carry based on DMG 184.  If a 300 lb dragonborn runs around naked, it needs something with 24 strength to carry it around, i.e. a level 16 quadrupedal brute.  Btb mount rules mean Dragonborn have to walk until they're ready to leave the material world and shake the foundations of the universe.  I rest my case.  ;-)  Proposed house rule--when mounted, a character is assumed to be carrying all the gear on the mount.  The mount shares whatever encumbrance category the rider has.  Unrealistic?  Yes, it means a halfling wizard's horse carries far less than a dragonborn fighter.  But, it's superior, imo, because it takes away all of the hidden punishments for choices the PCs don't fully understand at character creation.



Why does it have to be a Level 16? Monsters don't play by the same rules as characters, nothing is stopping you from giving a Rage Drake a Str 24 and say it's the strongest drake of its species. Either that or coming up with a special quality, like:

Dragonborn-bred: This creature can carry twice its usual load capacity, thanks to being bred by the dragonborn for war.


----------



## darkadelphia (Sep 3, 2008)

"when mounted, a character is assumed to be carrying all the gear on the mount. The mount shares whatever encumbrance category the rider has."  This.  It was getting late, I was feeling impatient.  With two riders, a strong character may very well be able to carry a halfling or a lightly loaded wizard, and it's still better than using mount encumbrance and simpler than anything else.  I would probably allow very small characters to use their own encumbrance value, or the mounts btb (whichever is most beneficial).  As far as using magic items to make mounts work for dragonborn, a poor solution imo, because, once again, it's a hidden disadvantage unless you give out that magic item for free to every dragonborn, in which case, why not just change the rules.  Furthermore, I was looking into it further and realized this problem doesn't just affect dragonborn.  A 200 lb human fighter with a heavy shield, a bastard sword and plate armor tips the scales at 271 lbs.  So it's not really a DB problem, it's dragonborn, humans and dwarves who are likely to be slower on mounts than on foot.


----------



## Keenath (Sep 3, 2008)

In real life, most mounted fighting men had three horses -- a warhorse (or "charger") for battle, a riding horse (or "palfrey") for travel, and a second riding horse (or "sumpter") to carry his gear.

I have no problem with the idea that a truly massive character will have a harder time finding an appropriate horse.  For that matter, I feel no particular need to have all horses be the same.  I'd certainly let the dragonborn find a mount.. a massive draft horse that can lift him but just doesn't gallop no matter what you do, the most stoic horse imaginable...


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Sep 3, 2008)

Yeah, I pretty much know that a real Earth horse can't strap on 720 lbs. and haul balls for eight hours. I just offered a quick fix to get D&D horses to be able to carry human riders. Honestly, half that figure should be reasonable if you get a really beefy horse.

Yes, rage drakes are cooler mounts for dragonborn than horses. No, they cannot carry dragonborn fighters with 20 str @ 320+ lbs. bodyweight in the RAW. Yes, this is stupid. No, it's not for balance reasons. Yes, it's because designers didn't pay much attention to something this extraneous. Yes, I will be changing it.

And FYI I gave our dragonborn pally a genetic freak Warhorse. It's 24 hands tall and weighs about 2600 lbs with a Str score of WTF. It eats like 50 lbs of oats a day and then craps pure lightning.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 4, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> And FYI I gave our dragonborn pally a genetic freak Warhorse. It's 24 hands tall and weighs about 2600 lbs with a Str score of WTF. It eats like 50 lbs of oats a day and then craps pure lightning.




Sounds like the William Wallace of horses!


----------



## darkadelphia (Sep 4, 2008)

Syrsuro said:


> What doesn't work, imho, is a fix that ignores that maxim and instead takes the approach of using the sledgehammer of instituting a global fix (like increasing the carry weight formula for all quadrupeds) to solve a narrowly focused problem.
> 
> Carl




But it's not narrowly focused.  Let horses carry extra--fine, that fixes early heroic.  But then the PCs might want/get griffons, then you have the exact same problem.

 The strongest mounts in the game, atm, are wyverns (lvl 10) and rimefire griffons (lvl 20) at strength 24.  This allows them to carry 350 pounds, still leaving many reasonably geared Dragonborn up poo creek.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Sep 4, 2008)

It's just dramatically apropriate for a hero on horseback to ride in, scoop up a damsel in distress and gallop off into the sunset.  Let it happen.


----------



## Syrsuro (Sep 4, 2008)

darkadelphia said:


> But it's not narrowly focused. Let horses carry extra--fine, that fixes early heroic. But then the PCs might want/get griffons, then you have the exact same problem.
> 
> The strongest mounts in the game, atm, are wyverns (lvl 10) and rimefire griffons (lvl 20) at strength 24. This allows them to carry 350 pounds, still leaving many reasonably geared Dragonborn up poo creek.




And yet - I don't mind that.

If it comes to pass that my party is wheeling around the world on flying mounts and the Dragonborn is feeling left out, I'll worry about it then.

But by the time my players get to that level, I figure WoTC will have added cheese like a Dragonborn racial feat to let them grow their own wings anyway.

And if not, I'll deal with it then using another specific fix rather than changing the underlying global rules.

Carl


----------



## Klaus (Sep 4, 2008)

darkadelphia said:


> But it's not narrowly focused.  Let horses carry extra--fine, that fixes early heroic.  But then the PCs might want/get griffons, then you have the exact same problem.
> 
> The strongest mounts in the game, atm, are wyverns (lvl 10) and rimefire griffons (lvl 20) at strength 24.  This allows them to carry 350 pounds, still leaving many reasonably geared Dragonborn up poo creek.



Any *extremely heavy*, reasonably geared dragonborn. Your 320lbs. dragonborn is at the uppermost extreme of the weight range.

The dragonborn warlord in my campaign is 6'5" tall and weighs 220 lbs (the player himself chose those, and he's 6' tall and weighs 170 lbs).

It's entirely believable that the riders among the dragonborn are lighter than average, and the heavyest ones must resort to charioteering or walking.

The easiest fix? Have the player reduce the character's weight to 230 lbs. Add in another 32 lbs. of equipment and the character can ride a warhorse unhindered.


----------



## darkadelphia (Sep 4, 2008)

Klaus said:


> Any *extremely heavy*, reasonably geared dragonborn. Your 320lbs. dragonborn is at the uppermost extreme of the weight range.
> 
> The dragonborn warlord in my campaign is 6'5" tall and weighs 220 lbs (the player himself chose those, and he's 6' tall and weighs 170 lbs).
> 
> ...



A bastard sword, a heavy shield and plate mail weigh 71 pounds, that means a 280 lb dragonborn is out of luck--this is right in the middle of the weight spectrum.  I don't see why people keep portraying this as some sort of extreme case bizarre example.  Humans, Dwarves and Dragonborn have difficulty riding normal mounts and Dragonborn have difficulty fitting into the strongest mounts.  You can pretend that this is "desirable" or "an extreme example," but these problems affect players who aren't doing anything inappropriate or unusual.<br /><br />

There needs to be a fix.  For some people, it's perfectly fine to just arbitrarily make adjustments each time it comes up--that's fine by me too.  Personally, I want to make a consistent house rule to handle the situation.  What seems ridiculous to me is the people saying Dragonborn should just be left out.  Seriously, let me sit in on a game with a Dragonborn Fighter so I can see how the player reacts when you tell him ol' Balasar Drakerider is too heavy to ride anything--ever.


----------



## Caliban (Sep 4, 2008)

Proably handle it the same way we handled lack of mounts in 3e - just ignore unless it's important to the current adventurer.

With all the flight spells, teleport, plane travel, area damage spells, etc, most of our PC's never bothered buying a horse anyway - you were just going to leave it behind or have it killed out from under you anyway. 

Outside of Paladins and some fighters or prestige classes, very few 3e characters cared about mounts - and paladins could summong the poke-mount whenever they needed it. 

4e doesn't have the pokemount, and paladins don't get special mounts. 

I personally don't have a problem with some dragonborn (and even some humans) not being able to ride a standard mount because they are too heavy.    If you have a dragonborn who is going to focus on riding, make sure he's near the bottom of the of the dragonborn weight range instead of the top.   Or make a special mount just for the heavyset dragonborns.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 4, 2008)

I think a better solution to the problem is to change the consequences for being encumbered. "Slowed" is a pretty steep movement penalty. Maybe change it to 2/3 speed or something instead?


----------



## Syrsuro (Sep 4, 2008)

Staffan said:


> I think a better solution to the problem is to change the consequences for being encumbered. "Slowed" is a pretty steep movement penalty. Maybe change it to 2/3 speed or something instead?




That thought occured to me (I debated a rule that would allow quadrupeds who were slowed due to being overloaded to move 4 rather than 2).  

But just to be sure we consider all angles, remember a slowed horse can still move 8.

Slowed equals 2.
Run adds 2 to that movement for 4.
Double move makes it 8.

So in the original example that started this thread out, they could still grab the girl and ride off.  You aren't going to catch a slowed horse on foot unless you either run yourself or are double moving.  I'm not sure it needs to be changed and am willing to wait until it comes up in my home game before worrying about a need to change that rule.  

Aside:  I am working on a Drake that will serve as a mount for a Dragonborn.  It doesn't actually have to be a rage drake.  Its actually easier to just create a new drake type and give it the necessary characteristics to serve as a Drake mount.  After all - with an article in the Dragon about the Dragonborn specifically mentioning a clan named "Drakeriders", you'd think a few of them might actually ride drakes.

Carl


----------



## Ulrik (Sep 4, 2008)

Syrsuro said:


> That thought occured to me (I debated a rule that would allow quadrupeds who were slowed due to being overloaded to move 4 rather than 2).
> 
> But just to be sure we consider all angles, remember a slowed horse can still move 8.
> <snip>




Sorry, but slowed states that you can't increase the speed above 2. So no running when you're slowed


----------



## Patlin (Sep 4, 2008)

There is a pokemount in 4e, but it's mid to late epic.  The Cleric utility power, Cloud Chariot.


----------



## Syrsuro (Sep 4, 2008)

Ulrik said:


> Sorry, but slowed states that you can't increase the speed above 2. So no running when you're slowed




That is your opinion.

But the opinion of WoTC differs.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20080715a



> *Q:* Can a creature run while affected by the slowed condition?
> *A: *Yes. The slowed condition reduces your speed to 2 squares. When you run, you move your speed +2 squares. Unlike the slowed condition, the run action does not change your speed; it allows you to move two extra squares beyond your speed at the cost of a -5 penalty to attack rolls, granting combat advantage until the start of your next turn, and provoking opportunity attacks.




Carl


----------



## Ulrik (Sep 5, 2008)

Syrsuro said:


> That is your opinion.
> 
> But the opinion of WoTC differs.
> 
> ...




Huh. Actually. I think that ruling sounds a bit weird, but I can agree that's what the RAW states.

(Although I can imagine an irate GM if I tried that "it doesn't increase my speed, it allows me to move 2 extra squares!" on him.)


----------



## Keenath (Sep 5, 2008)

Ulrik said:


> (Although I can imagine an irate GM if I tried that "it doesn't increase my speed, it allows me to move 2 extra squares!" on him.)



Why?  That IS what it says, and it's intentionally written that way.  It doesn't say your speed increases by 2 -- there are effects that say that, but this isn't one of them.  It says the action causes you to move your speed, plus two squares.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Sep 15, 2008)

Klaus said:


> Any *extremely heavy*, reasonably geared dragonborn. Your 320lbs. dragonborn is at the uppermost extreme of the weight range.
> 
> The dragonborn warlord in my campaign is 6'5" tall and weighs 220 lbs (the player himself chose those, and he's 6' tall and weighs 170 lbs).
> 
> ...




This is an important point. If the character wants to be a mounted warrior their build (physical and character) should reflect this. If we are to believe civil war sources, that an ideal cavalryman "stood no more than five foot, seven inches, and weighed 125 to 140 pounds" than the player should make a character that reflects this. To avoid a complicated historical tangent we should note that the use of heavy versus light cavalry and the weight of the riders and their gear has varied over time. The most important factor, however, was how they used their horses. Even if a character concept demands that the rider is in heavy armor, the fact is that heavy cavalry was not used for scouting, casual riding and transportation. Even a paladin in plate is using his horse more as light cavalry in a standard campaign.

I am a big fan of hand waving. Basically, the player takes a stab at fitting the mold, so no hugantic buff warriors in plate. If you wanna be a cavalryman, look like a cavalryman, act like a cavalryman and have a background appropriate for a cavalryman. The DM meets half way and doesn't question if the addition of a grappling hook or some gold slows the mount.


----------



## nittanytbone (Sep 15, 2008)

Normally I would agree with the above points about realism, the idea that a European knight might have 3 horses, etc.  Part of the design philisophy of 4E, however, is that realism takes a back seat to fun and cinematic action.

So, rather than have the Knight track the bookkeeping of 3 horses (only 1 of which is likely to be combat capable), he should have just 1 mount that is pretty survivable and likely to be a recurring character in its own right.

Maybe the upcoming Martial Power sourcebook will have some solutions.


----------



## mattador (Sep 15, 2008)

Get one of these. Problem solved.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Sep 15, 2008)

The Adventurer's Vault handily lists (on page 11) all the available mounts their price, combat, /hour and /day speeds along with their Normal, Heavy, and Push/Drag capacities.

Weighing in at 21,000 gp with a capacity of 325lbs the Trihorn Behemoth has the highest Normal load of any mount. The poor old Elephant only manages a 312 normal load, which is less than the recomended load for a small elephant, large adults have a recomended limit of up to 880lbs (max. capacity must exceed this).

For the curious barding has the following weights:
Large Creature - Light 40lb, Heavy 80lb
Huge Creature - Light 60lb, Heavy 120lb

(Hmm Paladin/Fighter with Lance (Spear), Heavy Shield, and Plate weighs in at 71lbs + Rider, Heavy Barding is 80lbs. So the rider cannot weigh more than 111lbs - that is a major issue. Seems someone forgot about the rider in working out mount capacity....)

However its worth noting that a Mount includes all gear needed to ride it, so we can skip the weight of saddles etc, further if we ignore the rider's weight then that would leave the Warhorse above with 111lbs for extra load - like say that evil noblewoman, or the halfling buddy.

Even doing that leaves huge animals way under capacity, but I suspect that is less of an issue. It might be easiest to just houserule them to have double capacity rather than 1.25x capacity.


----------



## darkadelphia (Sep 15, 2008)

Cailte said:


> (Hmm Paladin/Fighter with Lance (Spear), Heavy Shield, and Plate weighs in at 71lbs + Rider, Heavy Barding is 80lbs. So the rider cannot weigh more than 111lbs - that is a major issue. Seems someone forgot about the rider in working out mount capacity....)




Reasonable analysis has not yet convinced the good people of ENWorld that there's anything wrong with the mount rules.  Expect a reply of "Well, then the PC should weigh less than 111 lbs, clearly, the Chronicles of the Gauls dictated by the 5th century Monk, Polonius, indicate that all members of the Roman Cavalry were Halflings."  ;-)


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Sep 15, 2008)

darkadelphia said:


> Reasonable analysis has not yet convinced the good people of ENWorld that there's anything wrong with the mount rules.  Expect a reply of "Well, then the PC should weigh less than 111 lbs, clearly, the Chronicles of the Gauls dictated by the 5th century Monk, Polonius, indicate that all members of the Roman Cavalry were Halflings."  ;-)




Which is easily dismissed by pointing out that Roman Cavalry were skirmishers and not the heavy calvary created by the middle ages European knight described by Lance and heavy shield + plate mail situation with heavy barding.  Horses can clearly move effectively with this stuff on - just not in 4E DnD unless you ingore the rider's weight.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 15, 2008)

Cailte said:


> The Adventurer's Vault handily lists (on page 11) all the available mounts their price, combat, /hour and /day speeds along with their Normal, Heavy, and Push/Drag capacities.
> 
> Weighing in at 21,000 gp with a capacity of 325lbs the Trihorn Behemoth has the highest Normal load of any mount. The poor old Elephant only manages a 312 normal load, which is less than the recomended load for a small elephant, large adults have a recomended limit of up to 880lbs (max. capacity must exceed this).
> 
> ...



A warhorse in full plate barding carrying a human in plate armor and bearing a lance, longsword and heavy shield is heavy cavalry. By its very definition, heavy cavalry is slower, but more resilient. I see no problem with a warhorse being slowed down by this much weight. They make up for it with a single charge to break enemy lines, and then withstanding blows while the knight cuts foot troops with his sword.

Light cavalry is mainly a warhorse with no barding (or leather barding), carrying a rider decked in leather or hide armor, bearing a spear and shield, a longsword and a shortbow.

The heaviest cavalry in the Roman Empire (the Kataphractes - sp?) was a warhorse with chainmail barding, bearing a chainmail-wearing rider with a spear, a light shield and a longsword.


----------



## leifthelucky (Sep 15, 2008)

My houserule is to simply add a medium load category: encumbrance exceeding the light load reduces the horse's speed by 2 - both realistic and not crippling, in my opinion.  More than twice the load results in the actual 'slowed' effect of having the mount's speed reduced TO 2.


----------



## darkadelphia (Sep 17, 2008)

Klaus said:


> A warhorse in full plate barding carrying a human in plate armor and bearing a lance, longsword and heavy shield is heavy cavalry. By its very definition, heavy cavalry is slower, but more resilient. I see no problem with a warhorse being slowed down by this much weight. They make up for it with a single charge to break enemy lines, and then withstanding blows while the knight cuts foot troops with his sword.
> 
> Light cavalry is mainly a warhorse with no barding (or leather barding), carrying a rider decked in leather or hide armor, bearing a spear and shield, a longsword and a shortbow.
> 
> The heaviest cavalry in the Roman Empire (the Kataphractes - sp?) was a warhorse with chainmail barding, bearing a chainmail-wearing rider with a spear, a light shield and a longsword.



Did heavy cavalry move one third the speed of an unmounted peasant?  What I was trying to say with my previous post is I am making an argument in the interest of the fun of the game, and people are shooting it down based on "realism" when the current rules are no more realistic.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Sep 17, 2008)

Seriously. Yeah, heavy warhorses would be _slowed down_ by a fat guy in full plate, but they would not be Slowed. They would not move TWO from carrying a fat man in armor. That's slower than I can crab walk.

So how about those new mounts? Elephants with a light load of 317 lbs, eh? Can't ride a horse. Can't ride a rage drake. Can't ride an ELEPHANT. So a huge 20 str dragonborn STILL doesn't have a mount, even if it's size huge and possesses legs that look like ADULT OAK TREES (unless he just happens to weigh 250 lbs, because, like, muscle doesn't weigh anything, amirite?).

Mounts are meant to be ridden, so my PCs will ride them (without penalty!), even if they are 20 str dragonborn in full plate on a horse that looks like Ronnie Coleman (link SFW, unless your work frowns on men who aren't wearing shirts).


----------



## Lizard (Sep 17, 2008)

Can someone point me to the "ZOMG! Horses are TOO STRONG!" threads from 3x, since I can't otherwise understand why WOTC decided to "fix" the general Strength/Encumbrance rules, which for the first time in D&D history made sense and allowed for dragons and giants who weren't crushed under their own weight?

Linear strength formulas of any sort don't work for the scale of beings D&D (and D&D style) games need to quantify. The exponential+size mod system of 3x (lifted directly from Hero) worked fine, and imposed virtually no time cost in play. The new system gives us halfling supermen and crippled elephants, for no gain in "fun" that I can tell.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Sep 17, 2008)

The main "flaw" of the system is that, in order to simplify things, they have only full speed and "slowed". This means that there isn't a "slower than full speed but not ridiculously slow" speed.

But there are non-mount options [vehicles like carts] which don't have he slowed restriction. If the point is overland speed ... even with a "secondary" class for weight, the heavier members of the party would lower the groups speed either walking [because of armor] or because they reduce the speed of their horses [even if you add a weight class between the slowed and full speed].


----------



## Syrsuro (Sep 17, 2008)

leifthelucky said:


> My houserule is to simply add a medium load category: encumbrance exceeding the light load reduces the horse's speed by 2 - both realistic and not crippling, in my opinion. More than twice the load results in the actual 'slowed' effect of having the mount's speed reduced TO 2.




Another viable solution and one that is preferable to increasing the weight capacity of all mounts across the board, imho.

The question is whether  you make this increase for both tactical movement and overland movement or for only one or the other.

Carl


----------



## Hadrian the Builder (Sep 19, 2008)

*edited*


----------



## CubeKnight (Sep 19, 2008)

Lizard said:


> Can someone point me to the "ZOMG! Horses are TOO STRONG!" threads from 3x, since I can't otherwise understand why WOTC decided to "fix" the general Strength/Encumbrance rules, which for the first time in D&D history made sense and allowed for dragons and giants who weren't crushed under their own weight?
> 
> Linear strength formulas of any sort don't work for the scale of beings D&D (and D&D style) games need to quantify. The exponential+size mod system of 3x (lifted directly from Hero) worked fine, and imposed virtually no time cost in play. The new system gives us halfling supermen and crippled elephants, for no gain in "fun" that I can tell.



The famous Hulkin Hurler was only possible because of the exponential nature of carrying capacity.


----------



## jbear (Sep 19, 2008)

an overburdened untrained riding horse is more likely to throw whatever is on its back off or stop dead rather han move slowly in a heated battle. A war horse is a different story, but we are talking about a dragon born trying to ride away to safety with a companion on a normal riding horse, so, there you go... I see him and his friend tossed hard to the ground with a good kick in the nackers for good measure...


----------



## darkadelphia (Sep 19, 2008)

Depriving half the characters of a level 3 magic item is not a quick and easy solution, it's just changing the nature of the hidden penalty imposed on players for playing the character they want to.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Sep 20, 2008)

CubeKnight said:


> The famous Hulkin Hurler was only possible because of the exponential nature of carrying capacity.




That's an argument against the Hulking Hurler class, not carrying capacity. It's foolish to base something's combat damage off of what it can lift. Elephants can carry over 600 kg on their backs, but D&D 4e sez too that they can only carry 312 lbs, or less than 1/4 of the actual figure. Totally ridiculous.

Also, adding +50% carrying capacity DOES NOT solve the problem, even if that were a rational way to solve it. +50% of <1/4 of a feasible value =/= a feasible value.

The horse issue is less severe, but just as silly. A 2 ton warhorse that works out every day and eats half its body weight in oats is just not going to have a problem carrying a plated monster on his back. I seriously can't believe this conversation is still going.

Oh, and did anyone notice that barding is completely out of the question unless your character is a halfling? A warhorse can carry 262 lbs. Light barding weighs 40 lbs. That means if you are wearing armor you have to weigh less than 150 lbs. Except that heavy barding weighs 80 lbs. So if you're a paladin with full plate and a shield, and you're on top your warhorse in heavy barding? You had better be one tiny paladin with no gear!


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 20, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> That's an argument against the Hulking Hurler class, not carrying capacity. It's foolish to base something's combat damage off of what it can lift. Elephants can carry over 600 kg on their backs, but D&D 4e sez too that they can only carry 312 lbs, or less than 1/4 of the actual figure. Totally ridiculous.
> 
> Also, adding +50% carrying capacity DOES NOT solve the problem, even if that were a rational way to solve it. +50% of <1/4 of a feasible value =/= a feasible value.
> 
> ...



Finally, a benefit that is visible for being small. Halfings and Gnomes of the world rejoice!@


----------



## Lizard (Sep 20, 2008)

CubeKnight said:


> The famous Hulkin Hurler was only possible because of the exponential nature of carrying capacity.




Not sure what that's supposed to mean/imply. Was the PrC supposed to be broken, or something?


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 20, 2008)

Lizard said:


> Not sure what that's supposed to mean/imply. Was the PrC supposed to be broken, or something?



 If throwing the moon or a mountain isn't broken; what is?


----------



## Lizard (Sep 20, 2008)

Starbuck_II said:


> If throwing the moon or a mountain isn't broken; what is?




This happened a lot in games?


----------



## munkeywrench (Sep 20, 2008)

Here's my houserule:

The carrying capacity shown for mounts is in addition to the weight of a single rider who wears only cloth.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 21, 2008)

Lizard said:


> This happened a lot in games?



 Only ones that allowed the Hulking Hurler.


----------



## cheshire_grin (Sep 21, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> A 2 ton warhorse that works out every day and eats half its body weight in oats is just not going to have a problem carrying a plated monster on his back. I seriously can't believe this conversation is still going.



I take it you completely ignored the cited historical records that pretty much showed exactly that? There is a reason jockeys and cavalrymen are not large people; weight _matters_ even to a horse.

The problem is, in real life, strength scales linearly with size, while mass scales exponentially. That is, twice as big means twice as strong -- but four times as heavy. You run into wildly diminishing returns very quickly.

Now, if you want to argue for story purposes that the D&D milieu should support a heavy warhorse, in heavy barding, with a dragonborn on its back in plate, should roll along at precisely the same speed as a palfrey with a jockey in cloth, then be my guest; that's at least a defensible position. 

But IRL heavy cavalry wasn't used because of speed advantages over men on foot; it was used because the mass of the horse plus the mass of its armor made it a) very hard to stop the horse once it got moving, b) terrifying to stand in front of, and c) a terrific platform from which to kill lightly armored peasants. Having a mounted full-plate knight moving 2 squares/round doesn't seem unreasonable to me (but they should also get the commensurate advantages: extra charge damage, fear effect, etc).


----------



## jodyjohnson (Sep 21, 2008)

I don't see the problem as moving slower because you are over weight.  I see the issue as moving 4 times slower because of being over weight.

You can move at full speed up to 260ish and then any weight between 270 and dragging 1250 you move at 2.

Seems to me that there should have been a more graded scale.

Under 10x = normal
10x to 20x = move slower (-1 speed)
20x to 50x = _*slowed*_ while dragging/pushing


----------



## Kordeth (Sep 21, 2008)

Might I direct you all to the first paragraph of the "carrying, lifting, and dragging" rules on p. 222 of the PHB?



			
				PHB p. 222 said:
			
		

> The amount you carry should rarely be an issue, and you don’t need to calculate the weight your character is hauling around unless it’s likely to matter.




I see no reason not to extend that rule to mounts. In other words, when a mount is just carrying a rider and his or her gear, _don't worry about weight limits._ If the rider starts piling chests full of dragon-loot or unconscious paladins onto the horse's back too, or when the horse is injured or trying to move through terrain where weight might matter (a battlefield churned to mud by extensive rain and bloodshed, an ice-crusted lake, etc.), _then_ start worrying about weight limits.

Alternately, simply rule that if a creature has the Mount ability, it can carry a rider of the appropriate size and that rider's gear without any penalty to its speed.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Sep 21, 2008)

cheshire_grin said:


> I take it you completely ignored the cited historical records that pretty much showed exactly that? There is a reason jockeys and cavalrymen are not large people; weight _matters_ even to a horse.




I take it you completely ignored everything I posted unless it had the word "horse" in it. D&D elephants can't even carry a large HUMAN with all of his gear and barding, much less a dragonborn. Elephants are ridiculously strong, and could carry five fully armed men without slowing down to 1/4 speed.



> The problem is, in real life, strength scales linearly with size, while mass scales exponentially. That is, twice as big means twice as strong -- but four times as heavy. You run into wildly diminishing returns very quickly.




I would imagine that "wildly diminishing returns" don't start until after the elephant, since the elephant is fantastically strong, even for its size. It can move a car with its nose. Seriously.



jodyjohnson said:


> Seems to me that there should have been a more graded scale.
> 
> Under 10x = normal
> 10x to 20x = move slower (-1 speed)
> 20x to 50x = _*slowed*_ while dragging/pushing




This is good, but...



Kordeth said:


> In other words, when a mount is just carrying a rider and his or her gear, _don't worry about weight limits._ If the rider starts piling chests full of dragon-loot or unconscious paladins onto the horse's back too, or when the horse is injured or trying to move through terrain where weight might matter (a battlefield churned to mud by extensive rain and bloodshed, an ice-crusted lake, etc.), _then_ start worrying about weight limits.




This is better, and sort of what we're doing already.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Sep 22, 2008)

This thread isn't nearly silly enough.  When do we get to the argument over how quickly a horse can climb a rope?  It is an athletics check, and so it's strength-based, and horses are pretty strong....


----------



## Derren (Sep 22, 2008)

Syrsuro said:


> Bottom Line (as I see it): The weights in the book are logical and consistant and they work just fine. And they represent the average warhorse. If the player needs a larger horse (lets say a Percheron rather than a Friesian horse) he can buy it, it would just cost a bit extra.




Then you need to look again.
While the carrying capacity apparently is realistic, the effect of going over this limit is not. A horse does not slow down to 10 ft. per 6 seconds when it carries 300 lb.

In 4E the dragonborn is better of when he is carried by a dwarf then when he mounts a horse.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Sep 22, 2008)

The funny thing about the elephant is the encumberance rules are hardly the issue there, its actually their unencumbered movement. Get them encumbered and their speed is probably about right...

The problem for all mounts is solved if you simply ignore the weight of the first rider (but not their gear) and the basic harness (ie not barding) needed to ride and control the mount in combat.

Sure your heavy cavalry is going to be moving to fast for what it should really be able to do, but it is not going to get the historical benifits of heavy cavalry. But then again, even super heavy cavalry is far less scary than a person on a wyvern so maybe there is something to that...


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Sep 23, 2008)

On Puget Sound said:
			
		

> This thread isn't nearly silly enough. When do we get to the argument over how quickly a horse can climb a rope? It is an athletics check, and so it's strength-based, and horses are pretty strong....




If you're going to threadcrap, at least try to be remotely relevant. Nobody here wants horses to climb ropes. 



Cailte said:


> The funny thing about the elephant is the encumberance rules are hardly the issue there, its actually their unencumbered movement. Get them encumbered and their speed is probably about right...




Actually, no, it's about right. Elephants are faster than people, running upwards of 25 mph. Only olympic sprinters can outrun elephants.



> The problem for all mounts is solved if you simply ignore the weight of the first rider (but not their gear) and the basic harness (ie not barding) needed to ride and control the mount in combat.




Again, no. Elephants can't carry 1 person + 1 saddle + 312 lbs; they can easily carry triple that figure.


----------



## ObsidianCrane (Sep 23, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Actually, no, it's about right. Elephants are faster than people, running upwards of 25 mph. Only olympic sprinters can outrun elephants.




Speed 8 is their combat speed, this doesn't make them simply faster, it also makes them far more maneuverable than humans.



Old Gumphrey said:


> Again, no. Elephants can't carry 1 person + 1 saddle + 312 lbs; they can easily carry triple that figure.




Yes I'm aware of that, but being able to carry 312lbs more is far better than being able to carry barely 100lbs more right?

Its a matter of trying to implement a simple rule that will meet most circumstances needed for PCs.

Just make a howdah (sp?) a vehicle derived from the chariot rules and I suspect (don't have my AV atm) that a lot of the issue will go away for elephants carrying multiple people.


----------



## darkadelphia (Sep 23, 2008)

I always love telling my players they need to spend money/use up resources to patch the rules   Making players buy vehicles/magic items to make the mount rules work is inelegant and unfair.  I think the best solution I've seen is to treat mount encumbrance like vehicle encumbrance--a riding horse can carry 1 medium creature + x pounds of gear.


----------



## Hadrian the Builder (Sep 23, 2008)

You don't have to make your characters buy anything. This whole discussion is only an issue at the table if you make it an issue...


----------



## Lizard (Sep 23, 2008)

Hadrian the Builder said:


> You don't have to make your characters buy anything. This whole discussion is only an issue at the table if you make it an issue...




"This is only an issue if you use the rules. If you don't use the rules, it's not an issue."


----------



## balard (Sep 23, 2008)

Just give all the dragonborns the Shadow of the Colossus horses. THAT is a Huge horse.


----------



## darkadelphia (Sep 24, 2008)

balard said:


> Just give all the dragonborns the Shadow of the Colossus horses. THAT is a Huge horse.



Gonna hijack my own thread to say: I would love love love if I could come up with a way to do Shadow of the Colossus style fights in D&D and have them be fun.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Sep 24, 2008)

Just do it like a solo fight, and for your "interesting terrain" make it the boss itself, and include a physical skill challenge in the combat as the party climbs up its back to stab at its weak parts.

Elephant maneuverability is a system flaw, it's got nothing to do with elephant speed. All creatures in D&D are equally maneuverable in ground combat.


----------



## Hadrian the Builder (Sep 24, 2008)

The rules of the game are intended to guide the game and provide a common point of reference for all players so that they can make reasonable decisions. 

All the discussion points to one thing:
Some think the numbers provided for carrying capacity are unreasonable.

What are you going to do about it?
You can work around it with a houserule or whatever, OR
You can use it as written and deal with consequences.

For me, I choose the option that creates an enjoyable game. Sometime that means choosing to follow the rules precisely, and sometimes it means glossing over details. But let's not pretend that all the rules MUST be followed all the time. 

In the meantime, if you don't like the letter of the mount rules, the main way to effect change is to bring it to the attention of the developers, or propose an article for Dragon Mag...

Edit: I am intrigued by the elephant example though. I think it is far more relevant than the horse "problem". And looking through the AV, there is little advantage to a mount at low level.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 24, 2008)

darkadelphia said:


> Gonna hijack my own thread to say: I would love love love if I could come up with a way to do Shadow of the Colossus style fights in D&D and have them be fun.



 A few month back, wasn't there that guy who did that Boss thresd where he made them like Shadiw of Colossus. The memory is hazy but I think there was.


----------



## HarbingerX (Sep 25, 2008)

Derren said:


> Then you need to look again.
> While the carrying capacity apparently is realistic, the effect of going over this limit is not. A horse does not slow down to 10 ft. per 6 seconds when it carries 300 lb.




I don't see how a horse carrying 300 lbs. being limited to 68 mph tactical speed is somehow unrealistic. A check of wikipedia shows that the fastest recorded sprint speed of a horse over a short distance is 55 mph. And you can bet it wasn't carrying 300 lbs. of gear.

If anything, all existing tactical speeds are too high.


----------



## HarbingerX (Sep 25, 2008)

Please blast my math if something is wrong here, but 1 'Horsepower' - the power output of one draft horse - is 33,000 lbs * feet / minute. This would mean that a horse can pull 330 lbs 100 feet / minute, or...

330 lbs * 10 feet / 6 seconds.... 

10 ft per 6 seconds.


----------



## Kordeth (Sep 25, 2008)

HarbingerX said:


> I don't see how a horse carrying 300 lbs. being limited to 68 mph tactical speed is somehow unrealistic. A check of wikipedia shows that the fastest recorded sprint speed of a horse over a short distance is 55 mph. And you can bet it wasn't carrying 300 lbs. of gear.
> 
> If anything, all existing tactical speeds are too high.




Umm--how do you get 68 mph out of 10 ft. per round? That's 100 ft. per minute, 6,000 feet per hour, or barely more than 1 mph. Even if you assume a double-move pace (which is harder to sustain), a Speed of 2 is right around 2 mph.

Even unencumbered, a riding horse's speed of 10 (50 ft. per round) is about 5.6 mph, or 11.2 if it double-moves.


----------



## HarbingerX (Sep 25, 2008)

Kordeth said:


> Umm--how do you get 68 mph out of 10 ft. per round? That's 100 ft. per minute, 6,000 feet per hour, or barely more than 1 mph. Even if you assume a double-move pace (which is harder to sustain), a Speed of 2 is right around 2 mph.
> 
> Even unencumbered, a riding horse's speed of 10 (50 ft. per round) is about 5.6 mph, or 11.2 if it double-moves.




Doh! I used 100 feet per second, not per minute. 

_Move along! Move along! Nothing to see here!_

So 5.6 mph with a top speed of 11.2 mph is about right. See my next post - a speed of 2 when carrying 330 lbs is about right.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Sep 25, 2008)

Derren said:


> In 4E the dragonborn is better of when he is carried by a dwarf then when he mounts a horse.




When I reread the dwarf ability it only reinforces my opinion that in the mad rush to get the books out a paragraph got snipped regarding slower but not _Slowed_ movement when encumbered.

The best beasts of burden in 4e really are the dwarves.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Sep 25, 2008)

jodyjohnson said:


> The best beasts of burden in 4e really are the dwarves.




I hate this game so much.


----------



## cheshire_grin (Sep 26, 2008)

HarbingerX said:
			
		

> Please blast my math if something is wrong here, but 1 'Horsepower' - the power output of one draft horse - is 33,000 lbs * feet / minute. This would mean that a horse can pull 330 lbs 100 feet / minute, or...
> 
> 330 lbs * 10 feet / 6 seconds....
> 
> 10 ft per 6 seconds.



And that's _pulling_, not even carrying.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Sep 26, 2008)

First of all, what kind of horse is this based on? Probably not a heavy warhorse. 330 lbs. really isn't much for a creature that weighs nearly 2 tons. Also, I don't think horses typically go for a sprint while they're hooked up to a heavy weight on a sled with freaking ropes. 

Me, personally, can pull 360 lbs. 10 feet in 10 seconds, if it's on a sled. And I'm not exactly as strong as a horse. I think a horse can pull 330 lbs. like, forever. I can do this for like...20 seconds. My point is that if you put the 330 on its back and tell it to run, it can, because it's not attached to ropes dragging a sled.

How is this conversation still going on? Why do people refuse to believe that horses are strong?


----------



## Marshall (Sep 28, 2008)

Syrsuro said:


> You are right.  If the weight of characters was actually in any way related to their strength, the average fighter would weigh 220#.  _But in reality D&D it does not. _ In reality (in my experience) most players give their characters weights that are 200# or lower.
> 
> Especially when the PHB lists the weight range for humans as 135 to 220 pounds, putting weights over 200# at the very high end of the range.</p>




AHA! So your solution to the artificially low carrying capacity of horses is to use the artificially low weight range for Humans! I see! 

The problem is that we have real world examples of human beings. My suspension of disbelief is wrecked when the guy playing the 6'6" STR20 Fighter tells me he weighs 165. 
We have prime examples of those people, we see them every Sunday in the fall....That guy is 250-265 and _Fast_...


----------



## Starbuck_II (Sep 28, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> I hate this game so much.



 Makes sense. They should use Dwarves as horses. Feed them Barley which makes alcohol.


----------



## Wonka (Sep 28, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:


> If you're going to threadcrap, at least try to be remotely relevant. Nobody here wants horses to climb ropes.




I do! I, for one, welcome our rope-climbing horse overlords. But what about _jumping_? Also based on strength, and much more likely to come up with a horse. Need to jump that fence to get away? Uh oh! How much are you carrying? Sorry to add fuel to this fire that just wont die


----------



## darkadelphia (Sep 28, 2008)

Actually, horses are awful at jumping, btb!


----------



## Wonka (Sep 28, 2008)

darkadelphia said:


> Actually, horses are awful at jumping, btb!





Nuh uh! Epona can clear them fences!


----------



## Nail (Sep 28, 2008)

Khime said:


> Be Kareful! Møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...
> 
> A Møøse once bit my sister ...
> 
> ...



Alright, look:  This response was hilarious, and completely ignored.  For shame!


----------



## Wonka (Sep 28, 2008)

Nail said:


> Alright, look:  This response was hilarious, and completely ignored.  For shame!




Thats very true, I forgot about that post in my reading of this thread. Monty Python is always funny.


----------

