[Basic/MA] Defense On Horseback - Seated?

Gigermann · 08-22-2021, 11:25 AM

Recently I ruled that someone on horseback is considered "Seated" for Active Defense purposes (-2). But there is also the Riding skill-based penalty (B398) which I later considered might override that Posture. So, the question is: do they stack? It's not clearly stated either way, as far as I've been able to determine. Have I missed anything?

Of course, if the Active Defense penalty applies for being Seated, it stands to reason that the penalty to be targeted for that Posture might also apply.

Given that this question arose from a group of mounted bandits riding down a Heroic Archer PC, I also began to wonder about other defensive situations like "riding evasively"—which is apparently not mentioned either. Logically, you could apply a Vehicular Dodge (B470) based on Riding, but as written, that only applies to attacks on the vehicle (or mount, in this case).

And lastly, aside from All-Out Defense on the rider's part, are there any other defense options? Can't Retreat. Extra-Effort would apply (but our group has a standing rule that NPCs don't get to use that except in special cases). Equine Acrobatics, maybe…

ravenfish · 08-22-2021, 12:01 PM

As a GM, I would rule that the given skill penalties of Riding replace (i.e., do not stack with) the penalties for sitting. When the book lists specifically lists the combat penalties that apply when riding, throwing in additional penalties seems like bad form. Moreover, from a realism standpoint, mounting a horse is very different than mounting a chair- you are both more mobile and more erect, to start with.

EDIT: While a mounted combatant presumably loses the option to retreat, he is treated, per Campaigns p. 398, as having higher ground. Unless his opponent has brought long weapons, the rider gets at least +1 to defend (and his opponent gets -1)- i.e., he gets the same benefit on all his defenses as a retreat would have given him on one (dodges and fencing parries don't get quite as much benefit as from a retreat, but perhaps that's the reason Horseback Foil and Horseback Saber aren't sports). If you're desperate for more options, the Defensive Attack option from Martial Arts, where you trade reduced damage for a slightly increased defense, would work just as well mounted as on foot. I also wouldn't rule out an Acrobatic Dodge on horseback (outright performance acrobatics on horseback are a tradition in some circles), although (as a house rule) I might cap Acrobatics skill at Riding skill in the same way melee skills are capped.

Boge · 08-22-2021, 12:40 PM

B396 top left

A rider can Dodge, Block, or Parry.
If he has Riding at 12+, all of these
defenses are at normal levels. For a
less-skilled rider, reduce active defenses
by the difference between 12 and
the rider’s skill; e.g., someone with
Riding-9 would have -3 to all active
defenses.

Gigermann · 08-23-2021, 08:45 AM

Just so future readers might understand the logic:
My assumption is/was that the defense -2 penalty for the Seated Posture comes from having all one's weight focused on one's butt-in-the-chair (or saddle) and limited or no use of one's legs, which are certainly heavily employed when dodging about while standing (as referenced in the Lame Disadvantage). I still don't see how sitting on a horse would be any better, but this isn't a question of "reality" so much as game rules.

The other perspective here is that the Seated Posture isn't mentioned at all with regard to defense-while-riding, while the skill-based penalty is, in numerous places where the subject is discussed. Once could be a mistake, but twice+ is less likely so. And it would certainly be less fiddly to override the one with the other here.

(There's also the rule that a grappler's Dodge isn't penalized at all, even from outside attacks, whereas in reality, his movement would certainly be restricted at least a little—so, not the first time I've disagreed with the rules-as-written.)

As to reality: I haven't ridden a horse in 30+ years, and I didn't attempt to dodge anything when I did, so I don't have any relevant personal experience on the matter.

Regarding the height-advantage:
That would have come into play if the bad guys, in my scenario, were able to close the distance. But they were mostly getting pincushioned by the archer(s). Without the Seated penalty, and if my GM-addled brain had remembered to use All-Out Defense (which was certainly warranted), they would have been much better off.

Varyon · 08-23-2021, 10:36 AM

I think in mounted combat one generally makes a lot of use of the legs, at least so long as stirrups are involved (even if lacking stirrups, the rider may still be essentially grappling the horse with his/her legs), making it more akin to a crouch than sitting. Additionally, the rider can also move the horse to improve his or her defense. Finally, I see no reason why one couldn't train to buy off defense penalties while seated, so we can presume (particularly given the rule cited by Boge) that's part of what's built into the Riding skill (in theory, non-combat riding could be an Optional Specialization of Riding, for those who can ride well but don't get the training to buy off the defense penalty).

Gigermann · 08-23-2021, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Varyon

Finally, I see no reason why one couldn't train to buy off defense penalties while seated

And there's a/the thing I missed… I don't see an existing specific Technique for "Fighting While Seated," but Low Fighting and Ground Fighting do basically the same thing, buying-off both attack and defense penalties for their respective Postures, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume it would be similarly available.

johndallman · 08-23-2021, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Varyon

I think in mounted combat one generally makes a lot of use of the legs, at least so long as stirrups are involved . . .

My riding experience is very limited, but you generally have part of your weight on your legs even in the most relaxed riding. In combat, you'd likely have all your weight on your legs part of the time.

A house-rule from the old Witch World campaign: a critically failed Dodge roll on horseback requires a Riding roll to avoid falling off.

Tomsdad · 08-24-2021, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Varyon

I think in mounted combat one generally makes a lot of use of the legs, at least so long as stirrups are involved (even if lacking stirrups, the rider may still be essentially grappling the horse with his/her legs), making it more akin to a crouch than sitting. Additionally, the rider can also move the horse to improve his or her defense. Finally, I see no reason why one couldn't train to buy off defense penalties while seated, so we can presume (particularly given the rule cited by Boge) that's part of what's built into the Riding skill (in theory, non-combat riding could be an Optional Specialization of Riding, for those who can ride well but don't get the training to buy off the defense penalty).

Yep I think this is right

DanHoward · 08-24-2021, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Varyon

I think in mounted combat one generally makes a lot of use of the legs, at least so long as stirrups are involved (even if lacking stirrups, the rider may still be essentially grappling the horse with his/her legs), making it more akin to a crouch than sitting.

Combat stirrups are very low so that the legs are straight. The rider isn't crouching or sitting, he is standing.

https://www.bayeuxmuseum.com/wp-cont...ie-800x580.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...aladin_Guy.jpg
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A6T15R/mil...ann-A6T15R.jpg
https://www.blackgate.com/wp-content...5/DSC_1041.jpg
https://uploads5.wikiart.org/images/....jpg!Large.jpg
https://www.planetfigure.com/attachm...ed-jpg.227467/
https://www.britishempire.co.uk/imag...floydlarge.jpg
https://myarmoury.com/talk/files/wwi...lancer_176.jpg
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-smifE2ms5..._cavalry_1.jpg

Archers have shorter stirrups because they need to be able to stand up and separate themselves from the motion of the horse.
https://images.fineartamerica.com/im...roductions.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxdyB0lW0AAwUPe.jpg
https://www.letslearnarchery.com/wp-...69-828x552.jpg

Polkageist · 08-24-2021, 09:13 AM

Riding is a very dynamic and active thing, you're definitely not sitting or in a sitting posture. You're constantly shifting your weight to direct and move with the horse, maintain balance, posting (standing in rhythm w/ stride) to smooth out your own ride, and so on. That's probably why defenses are normal at Riding: 12+, since at that level you are comfortable enough on horseback to comfortably move around in all the ways you need to.

To that end, I would add that I don't think the Retreat-and-Defense should be ruled out for riders. I WOULD only allow it once for the rider/horse combo, since it'll go down one of two ways. Way the first would be the rider retreating, which would slide them off the butt of the horse (or off the side, whichever) essentially an emergency dismount. Possibly more appropriate as a dodge-and-drop, but I'd make that call in the moment. The other is tapping the horse to retreat, which the horse is absolutely capable of doing but that's it for retreats for both the rider AND the horse (if there are horse defenses to handle), the rider has used up the action economy and attention in doing that. The team can't do the other retreat for the same reason you can't retreat twice while on foot.

08-22-2021, 11:25 AM	#1
Gigermann Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Oklahoma City	[Basic/MA] Defense On Horseback - Seated? Recently I ruled that someone on horseback is considered "Seated" for Active Defense purposes (-2). But there is also the Riding skill-based penalty (B398) which I later considered might override that Posture. So, the question is: do they stack? It's not clearly stated either way, as far as I've been able to determine. Have I missed anything? Of course, if the Active Defense penalty applies for being Seated, it stands to reason that the penalty to be targeted for that Posture might also apply. Given that this question arose from a group of mounted bandits riding down a Heroic Archer PC, I also began to wonder about other defensive situations like "riding evasively"—which is apparently not mentioned either. Logically, you could apply a Vehicular Dodge (B470) based on Riding, but as written, that only applies to attacks on the vehicle (or mount, in this case). And lastly, aside from All-Out Defense on the rider's part, are there any other defense options? Can't Retreat. Extra-Effort would apply (but our group has a standing rule that NPCs don't get to use that except in special cases). Equine Acrobatics, maybe… __________________ The Art of D. Raymond Lunceford, The Daniverse: Core Group Annex The Daniverse Game Blog

08-22-2021, 12:01 PM	#2
ravenfish Join Date: May 2007	Re: [Basic/MA] Defense On Horseback - Seated? As a GM, I would rule that the given skill penalties of Riding replace (i.e., do not stack with) the penalties for sitting. When the book lists specifically lists the combat penalties that apply when riding, throwing in additional penalties seems like bad form. Moreover, from a realism standpoint, mounting a horse is very different than mounting a chair- you are both more mobile and more erect, to start with. EDIT: While a mounted combatant presumably loses the option to retreat, he is treated, per Campaigns p. 398, as having higher ground. Unless his opponent has brought long weapons, the rider gets at least +1 to defend (and his opponent gets -1)- i.e., he gets the same benefit on all his defenses as a retreat would have given him on one (dodges and fencing parries don't get quite as much benefit as from a retreat, but perhaps that's the reason Horseback Foil and Horseback Saber aren't sports). If you're desperate for more options, the Defensive Attack option from Martial Arts, where you trade reduced damage for a slightly increased defense, would work just as well mounted as on foot. I also wouldn't rule out an Acrobatic Dodge on horseback (outright performance acrobatics on horseback are a tradition in some circles), although (as a house rule) I might cap Acrobatics skill at Riding skill in the same way melee skills are capped. __________________ I predicted GURPS:Dungeon Fantasy several hours before it came out and all I got was this lousy sig. Last edited by ravenfish; 08-22-2021 at 12:16 PM.

08-22-2021, 12:40 PM	#3
Boge Join Date: Jul 2015	Re: [Basic/MA] Defense On Horseback - Seated? B396 top left A rider can Dodge, Block, or Parry. If he has Riding at 12+, all of these defenses are at normal levels. For a less-skilled rider, reduce active defenses by the difference between 12 and the rider’s skill; e.g., someone with Riding-9 would have -3 to all active defenses.

08-23-2021, 08:45 AM	#4
Gigermann Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Oklahoma City	Re: [Basic/MA] Defense On Horseback - Seated? Just so future readers might understand the logic: My assumption is/was that the defense -2 penalty for the Seated Posture comes from having all one's weight focused on one's butt-in-the-chair (or saddle) and limited or no use of one's legs, which are certainly heavily employed when dodging about while standing (as referenced in the Lame Disadvantage). I still don't see how sitting on a horse would be any better, but this isn't a question of "reality" so much as game rules. The other perspective here is that the Seated Posture isn't mentioned at all with regard to defense-while-riding, while the skill-based penalty is, in numerous places where the subject is discussed. Once could be a mistake, but twice+ is less likely so. And it would certainly be less fiddly to override the one with the other here. (There's also the rule that a grappler's Dodge isn't penalized at all, even from outside attacks, whereas in reality, his movement would certainly be restricted at least a little—so, not the first time I've disagreed with the rules-as-written.) As to reality: I haven't ridden a horse in 30+ years, and I didn't attempt to dodge anything when I did, so I don't have any relevant personal experience on the matter. Regarding the height-advantage: That would have come into play if the bad guys, in my scenario, were able to close the distance. But they were mostly getting pincushioned by the archer(s). Without the Seated penalty, and if my GM-addled brain had remembered to use All-Out Defense (which was certainly warranted), they would have been much better off. __________________ The Art of D. Raymond Lunceford, The Daniverse: Core Group Annex The Daniverse Game Blog

08-23-2021, 10:36 AM	#5
Varyon Join Date: Jun 2013	Re: [Basic/MA] Defense On Horseback - Seated? I think in mounted combat one generally makes a lot of use of the legs, at least so long as stirrups are involved (even if lacking stirrups, the rider may still be essentially grappling the horse with his/her legs), making it more akin to a crouch than sitting. Additionally, the rider can also move the horse to improve his or her defense. Finally, I see no reason why one couldn't train to buy off defense penalties while seated, so we can presume (particularly given the rule cited by Boge) that's part of what's built into the Riding skill (in theory, non-combat riding could be an Optional Specialization of Riding, for those who can ride well but don't get the training to buy off the defense penalty). __________________ GURPS Overhaul

08-24-2021, 09:13 AM	#10
Polkageist Join Date: Sep 2007	Re: [Basic/MA] Defense On Horseback - Seated? Riding is a very dynamic and active thing, you're definitely not sitting or in a sitting posture. You're constantly shifting your weight to direct and move with the horse, maintain balance, posting (standing in rhythm w/ stride) to smooth out your own ride, and so on. That's probably why defenses are normal at Riding: 12+, since at that level you are comfortable enough on horseback to comfortably move around in all the ways you need to. To that end, I would add that I don't think the Retreat-and-Defense should be ruled out for riders. I WOULD only allow it once for the rider/horse combo, since it'll go down one of two ways. Way the first would be the rider retreating, which would slide them off the butt of the horse (or off the side, whichever) essentially an emergency dismount. Possibly more appropriate as a dodge-and-drop, but I'd make that call in the moment. The other is tapping the horse to retreat, which the horse is absolutely capable of doing but that's it for retreats for both the rider AND the horse (if there are horse defenses to handle), the rider has used up the action economy and attention in doing that. The team can't do the other retreat for the same reason you can't retreat twice while on foot.