# Using 2-Handed Melee Weapons While Mounted(?)



## Azlan (Dec 28, 2003)

In the many history books that I've perused, I've never seen a picture or read an anecdote of a combatant using a 2-handed melee weapon while mounted. I've never even seen this sort of thing done in the movies, historical or fantastical.

I realize that in D&D (as in real life), you can hold onto and guide your mount with your legs, thus enabling you to fight with both your hands. However, you are still fixed in place below the waist, which limits your combat maneuvers; and then there is the mount's neck and head being in the way; thus the use of a 2-handed melee weapon while mounted should be severely if not entirely limited.

There are a good number of rules for mounted combat in 3.0/3.5 D&D, yet the issue of using a 2-handed melee weapon while mounted is not addressed. (At least, I can't find any rules regarding this.) You can use a missile weapon 2-handed, albeit with severe penalties (and even with the Mounted Archery feat, those penalties are only reduced to half). But the dynamics for using a 2-handed missile weapon are very much different from those for using a 2-handed melee weapon, while mounted.

While mounted, you can use a 1-handed melee weapon and a shield, or a 1-handed melee weapon and a torch (or a banner or a pistol or whatever), but can you also use a 2-handed melee weapon while mounted? (Or, for that matter, can you use two melee weapons, one in each hand, against the same opponent, while mounted?)

Perhaps a 2-handed melee weapon (or two melee weapons) can be used while mounted against an opponent who is likewise mounted, albeit even that usage would suffer attack penalties.

Whatever. A combatant wielding a greatsword or a greataxe, 2-handed, while mounted -- especially against an opponent on the ground -- seems absurd to me, even if it's D&D.


----------



## Camarath (Dec 28, 2003)

As far as I can see, there is nothing in the rules that prohibits one from or penalizes one for weilding a two-handed melee weapon while mounted. If you would like to create rules that would do so you might want to post in the House Rules Forum.

Also here are some pictures from the Maciejowski Bible (circa 1250 ad) depicting the use of two-handed weapon while mounted.
Spear 
Sword 
Mace


----------



## Endur (Dec 28, 2003)

The rulebook assumes that nobody is going to be silly enough to try using a two-handed axe while riding a horse, so they neglected to officially write a rule prohibiting such.

If someone in one of my games wanted to wield a two-handed axe while mounted, I would laugh at them.

If they persisted, I would make the following rulings:

1) They'd have to make all of the usual mounted checks for fighting while not holding the reins of the horse.  DC 5 ride check, relatively easy to make if you have the ride skill.

2) They get the -4 non-proficency penalty for wielding a two handed weapon while mounted.  Two handed weapons aren't designed for mounted combat and warriors aren't trained to use them from mounts, so there is a weapon non-profiency penalty involved.

3) I probably wouldn't grant the wielder the two handed strength bonus or power attack bonus, as the angle of the second arm is all wrong.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 28, 2003)

While I'm not sure I'd heavily penalize a warrior of using a two handed weapon, I would think ride checks might be in order.


----------



## Azlan (Dec 28, 2003)

Camarath said:
			
		

> Also here are some pictures from the Maciejowski Bible (circa 1250 ad) depicting the use of two-handed weapon while mounted.




Thanks for those pictures! They were enlightening.

Like I said in my original post, I think it's possible for you to wield a 2-handed weapon while mounted, but only against an opponent who is likewise mounted. And the pictures you supplied appear to support this. But even then, I think you should suffer a penalty (i.e. an attack penalty, or a ride check, or both).


----------



## Azlan (Dec 28, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> The rulebook assumes that nobody is going to be silly enough to try using a two-handed axe while riding a horse, so they neglected to officially write a rule prohibiting such.




Heh. I never assume anything is too silly for a player character to try. If the rules don't cover it, you can be sure that someone, in some campaign, is going to try exploiting it.


----------



## CCamfield (Dec 28, 2003)

"With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action."

I would take the existence of this rule, plus the rule on mounted ranged weapons, to mean that it's intended to be possible for someone to ride and use a two-handed weapon at the same time.  It's a game, not a simulation - and someone riding a warhorse wielding a two-handed sword is "cool".


----------



## Azlan (Dec 28, 2003)

CCamfield said:
			
		

> It's a game, not a simulation - and someone riding a warhorse wielding a two-handed sword is "cool".




Yes, well, someone riding a horse and firing a bow is cool, too, but D&D 3.0/3.5 has penalties and limitations for that, doesn't it? So why not the same for combatants wielding a 2-handed weapon while mounted?

Just because D&D is not a "simulation", doesn't mean its rules can't simulate realistic medieval/Renaissance combat, to some degree or other. Otherwise, you'll have ridiculous situations in D&D like halflings running around wielding normal-size greatswords, like Cloud Strife in Final Fantasy VII.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 28, 2003)

We had a similar thread some months ago... I cannot provide better links than those above, but I do recall that twohanded weapons used to be pretty common for mounted soldiers. Probably due to the fact that much less shields have been used in melee combat than modern people are used from knight movies... I´m no rider by myself, but a twohanded greatsword makes fighting against polearms so much easier.


----------



## Tellerve (Dec 28, 2003)

I don't think using a two handed weapon would be that hard on the back of a horse if you were already trained in the use of the weapon and riding.  And I surely don't think it is an "exploit" do such.  As for the reason for ranged weapons getting a penalty, you are shooting something far away while moving, hence the penalty, not because it is a two handed weapon, IMO.

Tellerve


----------



## Camarath (Dec 28, 2003)

Azlan said:
			
		

> Otherwise, you'll have ridiculous situations in D&D like halflings running around wielding normal-size greatswords, like Cloud Strife in Final Fantasy VII.



 Well if the Halflings take the Monkey Grip feat in CW they could do just that.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 28, 2003)

That or he could just stand his ground and not be on a horse/pony.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 29, 2003)

There is nothing in the world preventing you from using a two-hander on horseback, either in game terms or in reality.  Using a great weapon is mostly done with the shoulders, and the range of movement is nothing like what you see from Conan villains.  Using a two-handed spear on horseback is pretty obvious.


----------



## Felix (Dec 29, 2003)

Abuse of the rules? 

A more powerful build is one that specializes in the lance; you get to use one hand if you want, do double damamge on a charge, and get fantastac reach with it. Combine that with Combat Reflexes and you have a mounted combat machine.

Comparatively, a two-handed weapon on a mount is relatively tame... you don't have the reach to use your Combat Relfexes, don't deal double damage on a charge, and don't have the option to use it one-handed.

"Ah," you might say, "but the two handed weapon can be used off of a mount as well as on! There lies the disadvantage with the Lance!"

What on earth is preventing you from using a lance while on the ground? The *only* difference between a lance and a longspear is in their special abilities: a spear can be set against a charge to deal double damage, and a lance deals double damage when charging from a mount. That, and the ability to use a lance one-handed while mounted, is *it*. For my money, the lance is the best reach weapon in the game because it can be used to such devastation on a mount, and isn't shabby off of one.

So... how is a mounted character "taking advantage" of the "hole in the rules" by wielding a two-handed weapon? Especially considering that this is a sub-optimal build?


----------



## Azlan (Dec 29, 2003)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> There is nothing in the world preventing you from using a two-hander on horseback, either in game terms or in reality. Using a great weapon is mostly done with the shoulders, and the range of movement is nothing like what you see from Conan villains.




Mostly done with the shoulders, huh?

Try this: Sit backward on a chair, straddling the seat between your legs, with the back of the chair six inches or so from your chest. Now put your fists together as if you were gripping a greatsword. Now lean out and swing to your left or your right, downward, as if you were up on horseback and you were swinging down on an opponent on the ground. And remember as you lean out and swing that you're holding on to a powerful, moving beast with only your legs.

Do that, and tell me you don't notice any restriction in attack-movement... !


----------



## Azlan (Dec 29, 2003)

Felix said:
			
		

> For my money, the lance is the best reach weapon in the game because it can be used to such devastation on a mount, and isn't shabby off of one.
> 
> So... how is a mounted character "taking advantage" of the "hole in the rules" by wielding a two-handed weapon? Especially considering that this is a sub-optimal build?




In reality, the lance _was_ the primary weapon of mounted cavalry. However, in reality you quickly lose the advantage of your lance, once you've completed a mounted charge and waded into battle. Thus the reason mounted cavalry carried a battleaxe, mace, or longsword (or bastardsword) as a secondary weapon.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Mostly done with the shoulders, huh?




Yes.  If you don't see what I mean, pick up a combat sport and study the greatsword for a while.


----------



## Azlan (Dec 29, 2003)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Yes.  If you don't see what I mean, pick up a combat sport and study the greatsword for a while.




Yes, but you're talking about using a greatsword while on foot, while I'm talking about using one from a mount.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 29, 2003)

I suppose, if you like, you could also consider the problems of using a longsword with your right hand against an opponent to your left.  There are problems with using a greatsword on horseback, but as already indicated above by several other posters, it was certainly accomplished.  I know it's possible to use a two hander from a sitting position, I can't imagine a horse is that much harder.


----------



## Felix (Dec 29, 2003)

> In reality, the lance was the primary weapon of mounted cavalry. However, in reality you quickly lose the advantage of your lance, once you've completed a mounted charge and waded into battle. Thus the reason mounted cavalry carried a battleaxe, mace, or longsword (or bastardsword) as a secondary weapon.



Ah. Reality. Sure. I completely agree with you about that. After a charge the lance becomes less useful. So they switch to a sword or mace. Particularly if the lance is still skewering the enemy footman.

Perhaps I misunderstand your problem. Is yours a mechanics complaint, or a flavor complaint? I can see it as a valid flavor complaint since very few horsemen wielded the two-handed axe that hauscarls on foot used. Ok.

But as a DnD mechanic I don't see the problem. It's a sub-optimal build. You compare it to mounted archery, but there is a huge difference: Mounted combat still requires the character to close to melee range. Mounted Archery combines attacking from distance with high maneuverability. Thus the need to balance it. The rules balance it further by not allowing Longbows to be used while mounted; thus the archers must close the distance even more. 

The penalty mounted melee with a 2-handed weapon has upon it is that you must go toe-to-toe with an enemy. Even if you have Ride by Attack, readied attacks on you will be (should be) used so you don't get away unscathed. And similar to two handed weapon combat on foot, you have less AC than someone with a longsword-and-shield. There's your penalty for you.

It's a flavor a player might enjoy. It doesn't disrupt anything except your view of verisimillitude. So what? If the player likes it, and it's a very individual flavor, let him get away with it.


----------



## xenoflare (Dec 29, 2003)

*chinese warriors*

hi guys,

  i'm not really that experienced with "real world physics" of mounted combat - but since DnD is a fantasy game, just gimme some leeway for my ignorance haha. 

  Accounts of warfare in Chinese historical literature and mythology are replete with warriors bearing pole-arms and spears from horseback, engaging in grand duels lasting long series of bouts with one another. In the Romance of 3 Kingdoms, the famous general of Shu, Guan Yu, earned his fame for battle prowess with the "Da Dao", or "Great Blade" both mounted and on foot - it's basically a naginata-like polearm. (Now people call Guan Yu "Guan Gong" because he has been elevated to the status of a God of War and Loyalty in Chinese religion, and they refer to the "Da Dao" as the "Guan Dao", or "Guan's Blade".)

  There're lots of other polearms that i can remember from my childhood tales - tiger-fanged war maces which were basically spiked clubbing polearms, snake-tooth spears, which were long, wavy, kris-like twin-bladed spears, etc, which mounted Chinese warriors used with great gusto. To get a bit of an idea about this, just take a look-see at the Playstation 2 game series "Dynasty Warriors", which is a rendition of these tales in video-game format.

  This may, or may not be true - the embellishment of history over time with myth and folklore, as well as artistic license with the various ages, but what i'm trying to point out is that it's pretty dang cool, and it's got a "tradition" of sorts, within at least one culture's imagination. It may not be "realistic", but hey, this is a game after all, and if my half-orc psychic warrior mounted on his snow tiger can't fight 50 bouts with an orcish double-bladed war-axe with his pseudonatural vampiric blackguard advesary mounted on a fiendish dire wolf, then that'll be an awful shame haha.

  hope this helped - just my 2 taels of silver.

yours sincerely,
shao


----------



## Amal Shukup (Dec 29, 2003)

Another thing for y'all to consider...

A horse is NOT a chair. You are NOT sitting on a dumb static animal - NOR are you perched upon some kind of wildly unstable combat platform that is hindering your every action. 

Rather, you are firmly seated (particularly with a high-cantled military saddle) on a very strong, very heavy, very stable, partially intelligent collaborative extension of your body (I do think DC 5 is a bit low to represent the level of skill actually involved in fighting from horseback though...). So when you compare fighting on foot to fighting in horseback, remember that the mounted fighter has four exceedingly powerful, slightly less nimble legs to work with rather than the usual two. Also a LOT of extra height and weight.

Seated on a horse wielding a greatsword. Rider wants to attack the poor gentleman on his left side. No worries. Raise the sword point down (a very common position for a greatsword actually), the horse shifts position, bringing the victim in range of the weapon (just like you'd do with your legs). Maybe even rears slighly and drops in time with the thrust - giving it some extra authority. 'Chop'. 

Wanna attack the guy who just stepped up behind you? Horse wheels around - all 1000+ pounds of him. Rider chokes up on the sword and swings... 'Chop'. Next!

This is all really well represented by the lack of facing in 3.5. While fighting on foot, you can turn, pivot, wheel, charge, sidestep, advance, retreat, jump, crouch, etc. All of that can be done with a horse as well.

"Oh, you just approach the horse on the shield side and hamstring the beast - that'll bring the Knight down. Easy pickings..."

Yeah? Try it... Rear. Pivot. Chop. Next peasant please...

Amal.


----------



## Camarath (Dec 29, 2003)

Amal Shukup said:
			
		

> (I do think DC 5 is a bit low to represent the level of skill actually involved in fighting from horseback though...).



 DC 5 is to guide your mount with your knees allowing both your hands to be free (free action at the start of your turn). To control a mount in combat (as a move action) is a DC 20 check (if you fail you can not nothing else in that round) unless the mount is trained for combat in which case you do not need to roll (but I think you still need to spend the move action).


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Dec 29, 2003)

I hear you Azlan, it does just seem to go against type and reason, probably not game balance.

We had a knight who routinely used his greatsword on horseback and that always broke my story immersion, so to me it is a problem.

I think the -4 non-proficiency is the best mechanic to deal with this because the lance and bow set the precedent for using a two handed weapon on horseback. The lance has the special one hand rule and the bow is at penalties for movement. 

Easy DC5 ride checks mock both weapons specialness as an above dex fighter could automatically make that at level 1, i.e. it never has to be rolled. 

I prefer some semblence to medieval history with weapons being used in their historical manner, i.e. greatswords amongst heavy foot. As the rules stand now, you could easily field a 1000 veteran cavalry (i.e. level 2) armed with glaives. That strikes me as rules rape.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Dec 29, 2003)

Actually I am thinking that a -4 penalty to attack may not be the answer here because what is it that we want to do? We want to discourage the common usage of an uncommon fighting style, not stop it completely.

The problem is that DC5 is too easy and any DC will at some point become an auto-success. I want there to be a penalty for all levels (like arcane spell failure) and I think the best way is to apply a negative modifier to the ride skill. This hurts the mounted combat feat, riding exotic mounts, contested checks and up to the higher mid levels, the various ride skill options.

A -2 is a place to start as per the DMG guidelines but skills are pretty easy to boost compared to raw combat stats. I think a -4 to ride is more in line.

*Always Remember to Buy the Players with a Sweetener!*
i.e.

Mounted focus 
Prerequisite: Mounted combat, ride skill 1+ rank.
Special: You are especially skilled in mounted close quarter combat. Any melee weapon used while mounted receives a +1 to damage so long as you qualify for the +1 bonus for fighting from higher ground. Additionally you may ignore the ride skill penalty for fighting with a two handed melee weapon.
Normal: Two handed melee weapons used while mounted incur a -4 to the ride skill.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 29, 2003)

Camarath said:
			
		

> DC 5 is to guide your mount with your knees allowing both your hands to be free (free action at the start of your turn). To control a mount in combat (as a move action) is a DC 20 check (if you fail you can not nothing else in that round) unless the mount is trained for combat in which case you do not need to roll (but I think you still need to spend the move action).




You do not need to spend the move action if the mount is trained for combat. If you had to, then you would never be able to get full attacks in mounted combat, since you would always be spending a move action.


----------



## CCamfield (Dec 29, 2003)

Excellent point, Xenoflare!  You reminded me of pictures/films of samurai I've seen using long spears on horseback (which, on doing a search, were called yari).

I suppose polearms, even with a large blade on them, probably were easier to use on horseback than a two-handed sword.  Still, if you allow one, it's probably simpler to allow them all.


----------



## Camarath (Dec 30, 2003)

shilsen said:
			
		

> You do not need to spend the move action if the mount is trained for combat. If you had to, then you would never be able to get full attacks in mounted combat, since you would always be spending a move action.



 The skill entry reads as follows


> Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for warhorses or warponies.



 It says that you do not need to roll for war trained mounts. To me that sounds like automatic success on the Control Mount in Battle move action. I do not think the the elimination of the of the need for the roll eliminates the need for the action.

This would mean that you would not be able to get a Full Attack if you Controled your mount in the same round. I assume if you did not Control your mount it would act on its own volition. This might not be such a bad thing if you have a war trained mount and have it preform the a trick such as Attack.


----------



## Darklone (Dec 30, 2003)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> Actually I am thinking that a -4 penalty to attack may not be the answer here because what is it that we want to do? We want to discourage the common usage of an uncommon fighting style, not stop it completely....
> Normal: Two handed melee weapons used while mounted incur a -4 to the ride skill.



It was not uncommon. The rules don´t say anything about penalties for two handed melee weapons while mounted. 

But: Feel free to *houserule* this aberration of a knight movie with twohanders who weighed 15 kg.


----------



## Felix (Dec 30, 2003)

[EDIT] I was sounding like a jerk. Let me try again.

Camarath: while I cannot argue with your use of semantics to support your point, because they are sound, I will argue against your point on the grounds that this defeats the purpose of Mounted Combat.

If forced to take a move action every round to Control a Mount in Battle, a mounted character could never:
-Move further than the speed of the mount.
-Attack and move in the same round.
-Charge, as charge is a full round action.
-Run, as running is a full round action.
-Maneuver around the battlefield better than a footsoldier with a move of 30'. (because he can take a double move for 60')

By forcing any character who uses both hands to do something while mounted to spend a MEA to Control the Mount in Battle renders mounts useless.

Put it this way:
You propose that any character who uses both hands for something else needs must make a CtMiB check, even if he auto succeeds.

Mounted Archery requires the use of both hands.

The rules state that a mounted archer may make a full attack, albeit at a penalty, even while double moving.

Therefore, the full-attacking, double-move mount controlling, mounted archer does not have to spend a MEA to control the mount in battle. So even though your interpretation of


> You do not need to roll for warhorses or warponies.



is semantically possible, other rules show it to be incorrect.


----------



## Camarath (Dec 30, 2003)

Felix said:
			
		

> Camarath: while I cannot argue with your use of semantics to support your point, because they are sound, I will argue against your point on the grounds that this defeats the purpose of Mounted Combat.
> 
> If forced to take a move action every round to Control a Mount in Battle, a mounted character could never:
> -Move further than the speed of the mount.
> ...



 I believe that your mounts actions do not count agianst your actions in a round.


			
				Felix said:
			
		

> -Charge, as charge is a full round action.



From the SRD


> If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge).



 Thus when mounted you don't charge your mount charges (i.e. the Charge is its action) and you gain the bonuses and penalties of charging.


			
				Felix said:
			
		

> By forcing any character who uses both hands to do something while mounted to spend a MEA to Control the Mount in Battle renders mounts useless.
> 
> Put it this way:
> You propose that any character who uses both hands for something else needs must make a CtMiB check, even if he auto succeeds.



 I think that all charaters need to spend a move action to Control a Mount in Battle regardless of how they use thier hands or whether or not they are automatically successful.


			
				Felix said:
			
		

> Mounted Archery requires the use of both hands.
> 
> The rules state that a mounted archer may make a full attack, albeit at a penalty, even while double moving.
> 
> ...



 I think the Mounted Archery rules make it clear that your mount's action do not count agianst your actions in a round since you can prefrom a Full Attack while your mount moves (and Attack while your mount takes a Double Move). As far as I can see the rules do not say that you can control your mount while making a Full Attack or that you need to do so.

My view is if you spend a move action to Control Mount in Battle you get to control your mounts actions and if you do not spend the move action your mount controls its own actions.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Dec 30, 2003)

Darklone said:
			
		

> It was not uncommon. The rules don´t say anything about penalties for two handed melee weapons while mounted.
> 
> But: Feel free to *houserule* this aberration of a knight movie with twohanders who weighed 15 kg.




Yep. This is the Rules forum. The questions "can you also use a 2-handed melee weapon while mounted? (Or, for that matter, can you use two melee weapons, one in each hand, against the same opponent, while mounted?)" have been answered, according to the rules: yes, yes you can.

-z


----------



## The Hanged Man (Dec 30, 2003)

Camarath said:
			
		

> I think that all charaters need to spend a move action to Control a Mount in Battle regardless of how they use thier hands or whether or not they are automatically successful.
> 
> I think the Mounted Archery rules make it clear that your mount's action do not count agianst your actions in a round since you can prefrom a Full Attack while your mount moves (and Attack while your mount takes a Double Move). As far as I can see the rules do not say that you can control your mount while making a Full Attack or that you need to do so.
> 
> My view is if you spend a move action to Control Mount in Battle you get to control your mounts actions and if you do not spend the move action your mount controls its own actions.




I don't think that's right for trained warhorses.  The rule for "Control Mount in Battle" requires a move action and a Ride check *only* for mounts untrained for battle, and so doesn't apply to trained mounts at all.  Neither part of that sentence applies to trained mounts.  For trained mounts, it says only that no roll is required, not that a move action is still needed to control a mount in battle.

Also, there's another aspect to the Ride skill.



> Fight with Warhorse: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.




Thus, to fight with a warhorse in battle is a free action.  This applies to attacks, not movement, but this is the only mention of what action is required to direct a warhorse, and it specifies a free action.  

Besides, what does it mean when a trained mount "controls its own actions?"  In what way would that be different from the trained mount simply doing what the rider wants?


----------



## Endur (Dec 30, 2003)

Actually, the rules don't say whether you can weild a two handed weapon while mounted.  So the answer is up to GM discretion.

Likewise, the rules don't say whether you can weild a two-handed weapon while climbing, swimming, flying, or standing on your head.  

A GM is necessary to interpret the rules.



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> Yep. This is the Rules forum. The questions "can you also use a 2-handed melee weapon while mounted? (Or, for that matter, can you use two melee weapons, one in each hand, against the same opponent, while mounted?)" have been answered, according to the rules: yes, yes you can.
> 
> -z


----------



## Camarath (Dec 30, 2003)

The Hanged Man said:
			
		

> Besides, what does it mean when a trained mount "controls its own actions?"  In what way would that be different from the trained mount simply doing what the rider wants?



 The mount might for example move in a way that its rider might not desire such as through threatened spaces instead of around them.


			
				The Hanged Man said:
			
		

> Thus, to fight with a warhorse in battle is a free action.  This applies to attacks, not movement, but this is the only mention of what action is required to direct a warhorse, and it specifies a free action.



 You can direct your war-trained mount to Attack as a free action. That Ride skill usage does not say anything about controling your mounts movement and other non-attack actions.


			
				The Hanged Man said:
			
		

> I don't think that's right for trained warhorses.  The rule for "Control Mount in Battle" requires a move action and a Ride check *only* for mounts untrained for battle, and so doesn't apply to trained mounts at all.  Neither part of that sentence applies to trained mounts.  For trained mounts, it says only that no roll is required, not that a move action is still needed to control a mount in battle.



 It does not say that the move action is not needed to control a Warhorse just that the roll is not needed. It does not actually say anything at all about what type of action or if any action at all is needed to control a Warhorse in combat. I assumed that since it is not stated that you do not need to "Control Mount in Battle" when riding a Warhorse that you still needed to preform an action to do so. And since the base "Control Mount in Battle" action is a move action I thought that using that action on a Warhorse would still be a move action.

However you are probably right and they meant for riding a Warhorse in battle to the same a riding one outisde of battle. I do find it odd to state that a "roll" is not needed when what is meant is that the action is not needed.


----------



## Camarath (Dec 30, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> Actually, the rules don't say whether you can weild a two handed weapon while mounted.  So the answer is up to GM discretion.
> 
> Likewise, the rules don't say whether you can weild a two-handed weapon while climbing, swimming, flying, or standing on your head.



The rules do say that you can "use both hands in combat" while mounted. Normally in combat you can wield two-handed weapons if you can use both your hands to do so and I see no rule or reason why you could not do so here. 

As for climbing the rules state "You need both hands free to climb" thus preventing the use of a two-handed weapon while climbing.


----------

