Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lseelba 12-11-03, 10:35 PM	A few questions: 1) The SRD says: "Stay in Saddle: You can react instantly to try to avoid falling when your mount rears or bolts unexpectedly or when you take damage. This usage does not take an action." This implies that every time you take damage, you must make a ride check (DC 5) to stay in the saddle. It is unclear whether you can attempt a soft fall if you fail this check. 2) When you fail a soft fall, you take 1d6 damage. Do you end up prone? I have been house ruling this. Also, it does not stipulate WHERE you fall. It matters a lot for AoO's, so I have been rolling a d4 to determine which square the PC lands in. 3) Directing a Mount to Attack: Can the mount move and attack? Can you make an attack if your mount has made an attack, or vice versa? 4) Using your mount as cover: This is the worst abused one. It is unclear whether you are using the mount for cover only for the duration you are attacked, or whether it lasts a round. Also, if you are flanked, how could you possibly use your mount for cover from both opponents. Do you all use the rule about hitting cover (i.e. your horse if you drop down for cover). If so, do you allow Mounted Combat feat to be used in conjunction with this? From my limited experience, full attacks while mounted are devastating. A full attack from an 8th level fighter followed by two hooves and a bite from a heavy warhorse gets a bit ridiculous. ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE BOTH HASTED!!! Finally, do you allow horses to make AoOs? Thanks.
Fixxxer 12-12-03, 01:15 AM	Bare in mind that mounted combat is not my speciality, though I believe I have a firm grasp. Also, I'm assuming here that we're talking about warhorses and mounts trained for combat rather than untrained mounts. Originally posted by lseelba 1) The SRD says: "Stay in Saddle: You can react instantly to try to avoid falling when your mount rears or bolts unexpectedly or when you take damage. This usage does not take an action." This implies that every time you take damage, you must make a ride check (DC 5) to stay in the saddle. I'm pretty sure that's the case...in addition to if the mount gets frightened enough to warrant a throw (casting fear spells on a mount is a great tactic!). It is unclear whether you can attempt a soft fall if you fail this check. I don't see why not. 2) When you fail a soft fall, you take 1d6 damage. Do you end up prone? I have been house ruling this. Also, it does not stipulate WHERE you fall. It matters a lot for AoO's, so I have been rolling a d4 to determine which square the PC lands in. Good questions. I don't recall ever reading anything that states whether you are prone or not. I've always ruled that passing your soft fall check means that you land on your feet while failing it means you land on your ass (or wherever suits the DM best). On the subject of where you are thrown to, I've always rolled a d8 and used the "Missing with a thrown weapon" picture (page 158 of the 3.5 DMG). 3) Directing a Mount to Attack: Can the mount move and attack? Can you make an attack if your mount has made an attack, or vice versa? Treat the mount the same as if it were a PC. In the most basic terms, it gets a standard and a move-equivilant action. If your mount uses its move-equivilant action to close distance with an opponent, you can only make a single melee attack. As I understand things, if the mount doesn't move (it's already within melee range), you can make a full attack. Again, as I understand things, so can your mount. With ranged weapons, however, you can make an attack (even a full attack) while your mount is moving, but at a -4 penalty for a double move and a -8 penalty for running. 4) Using your mount as cover: This is the worst abused one. It is unclear whether you are using the mount for cover only for the duration you are attacked, or whether it lasts a round. The PHB isn't much more help on that subject. The way it reads, though, I would treat it as lasting until your next turn, or longer, if you wish. What this means is that you can attempt a ride check to avoid being hit (having your mount hit instead), but you have to stay that way at least until your next turn. This means that you can't make any AoOs, even if your opponent stands next to you, pulls down his pants and does a little kooky dance in your face. It also seems to mean that any attacks directed against you while covering in this manner hit your mount instead, which may cause the death of your ride. Also, if you are flanked, how could you possibly use your mount for cover from both opponents. You're just really good at guiding your mount as it twists and turns during the round. I would increase the DC of the required Ride check accordingly. Do you all use the rule about hitting cover (i.e. your horse if you drop down for cover). If so, do you allow Mounted Combat feat to be used in conjunction with this? Yes and yes. In fact, this seems to be the best use of the Mounted Combat feat. From my limited experience, full attacks while mounted are devastating. A full attack from an 8th level fighter followed by two hooves and a bite from a heavy warhorse gets a bit ridiculous. Bare in mind that when a mount uses a full attack, it's at some serious penalties. I like the 3.5 MM because it lists not only the beast's weapons and attack bonus, but also the weapons and attack bonuses during a full attack. Finally, do you allow horses to make AoOs? Oh, that's a tough one. I'm not sure if there's a right or wrong answer to this. Personally, I allow it sometimes. What this means is that an AoO is such a quick reaction that I don't think the PC could direct it. As the DM, I decide if the mount makes an AoO based on my view of the situation from the mount's perspective. It's probably not the best method, but it works for me.
Zaebos 12-12-03, 01:28 AM	1) you are correct, you need to make a ride check DC 5 if you take damage while riding your mount (or when it bolts or rears). It is quite clear in the 'soft fall' explanation that you can attempt a 'soft fall' check when you fall off the mount. 2)common sense would indicate that you are indeed prone after falling. However, I would probably house rule it that if you succeed in a soft fall, you are not prone. As to where you end up, DM's discretion. I normally allow those who succeed in a soft fall to choose where they end up, but I (the DM) also put them in the most unfavorable spot should they fail their soft fall check. Again, up to the DM. 3)I don't read the SRD, but in the PH 3.5 under the ride skill it says, "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 is a free action" The DC is 10 for this act. Also, if your mount moves more than 5' in a round, you can only make one attack. So yes you can move and attack in the same round, but you can't full attack if you move more than 5' with your mount. Again, your mount can attack as well, hoof hoof bite combo ONLY as a full attack so only when the both of you get to do a full attack is when both of you can do a full attack. Which means should you wish to ride into combat and attack, your horse gets one hoof and you get one attack. 4)To take the rules literally, yes, you get cover from those who are flanking you. But you are right, it doesn't have a duration, however, since it states that you can't cast spells or attack, I would assume that the effect lasts until the beginning of your next round. Yes use the rule for hitting cover as well since the rider is indeed using the mount as cover. I wouldn't allow the use of mounted combat feat to negate damage based on cover hit since it was the rider who was targeted, not the horse. But this is up for interpretation on the DM's behalf. 5)Yes horses get AoO's just like any other creature. hope this helps
Riznar 12-12-03, 05:08 AM	I have a question that I can't seem to find the answer for. It seems obvious, but do you take up space as a large creature when mounted?
Gothic_Demon 12-12-03, 05:35 AM	The answer to that one is yes, you take up space and have a facing the same as a large creature. This means that you have far more squares you can attack into, and more squares that you can be attacked from. Because of the twisting and turning of the mount in combat, you are considered to take up all the squares it takes up.
sjogren 12-12-03, 05:41 AM	Originally posted by lseelba 4) ... Do you all use the rule about hitting cover (i.e. your horse if you drop down for cover). If so, do you allow Mounted Combat feat to be used in conjunction with this? I believe that the paragraphs on mounted combat in Sword and Fist states that you cannot use them in conjunction because the attack was targeted at you, not the horse.
Zaebos 12-12-03, 12:10 PM	Originally posted by Riznar I have a question that I can't seem to find the answer for. It seems obvious, but do you take up space as a large creature when mounted? "For simplicity, assume that you share your mount's space during combat." Ph 3.5 page 157 Also it bears noting that you get a +1 bonus to attack when attacking a creature smaller than your mount. It also bears noting that you take a -5 penalty to ride checks to stay on a horse while bear back and a +2 bonus to ride checks to stay on a horse while in a military saddle.
lseelba 12-12-03, 04:13 PM	Originally posted by Zaebos 3)I don't read the SRD, but in the PH 3.5 under the ride skill it says, "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 is a free action" The DC is 10 for this act. Also, if your mount moves more than 5' in a round, you can only make one attack. So yes you can move and attack in the same round, but you can't full attack if you move more than 5' with your mount. Again, your mount can attack as well, hoof hoof bite combo ONLY as a full attack so only when the both of you get to do a full attack is when both of you can do a full attack. Which means should you wish to ride into combat and attack, your horse gets one hoof and you get one attack. [/B] I believe that if the mount moves more than five feet, it gives up its action (i.e. it cannot attack). I have been using the mount as an extension of the PC when the PC takes an action. Therefore, the way I understand it, you can: 1) Move the mount (more than five feet) and make a single melee attack with your PC. 2) Move the mount (more than five feet) and make a single melee attack with your mount. 3) Stand still (or take a 5-foot step) and take a full melee attack with the PC AND the mount. 4) Move the mount (or stand still) and make a full ranged attack. I suppose to answer my own question, based on treating the mount as an extension of the PC, I would allow the mount to make an AoO only if the PC did not make an AoO, and that AoO would count as that PC's AoO for the turn (unless they have combat reflexes of course).
Zaebos 12-13-03, 01:39 PM	The mount, however, isn't an extension of the PC. It can make its own attacks as long as you direct it to do so. Reread the 'Fight with War Horse' action for the ride skill. I haven't found any documentation that indicates that the mount forgoes any attack should it move more than 5'. But what I did find in Sword and Fist Combat examples, example 1, mounts gain an attack as part of the turn, even while charging, and can use mounted overrun(trample) all in the same round. If you have the trample feat, then your mount gets a FREE attack as well if your mounted overrun(trample) action was successful. This was in addition to the attack from the rider. However, it also states in Sword and Fist, in the combat examples, example 1, that a soft fall still makes you prone, so I was wrong on that instance.
honeynuggets 03-09-04, 07:04 PM	Wow, a lot of bad information in these replies. Using your mount as cover: This is the worst abused one. It is unclear whether you are using the mount for cover only for the duration you are attacked, or whether it lasts a round. Also, if you are flanked, how could you possibly use your mount for cover from both opponents. Do you all use the rule about hitting cover (i.e. your horse if you drop down for cover). If so, do you allow Mounted Combat feat to be used in conjunction with this? Cover is defined clearly as granting +4 AC, +2 Ref saves. PHB p. 151. Nowhere in the description does it state that attacks hit the object granting cover. The fact that the +4 AC is given suggests that the target aimed at becomes smaller such as a leg exposed, etc. Even the Soft Cover definition does not say that missed attacks strike the foes or allies granting the Soft Cover. So no, missed attacks do not strike the mount granting cover, they miss the exposed portion of your body. Mounted Combat does not even apply since the mount is not hit in the first place.
Fixxxer 03-09-04, 11:10 PM	Originally posted by honeynuggets Wow, a lot of bad information in these replies. Cover is defined clearly as granting +4 AC, +2 Ref saves. PHB p. 151. Nowhere in the description does it state that attacks hit the object granting cover. The fact that the +4 AC is given suggests that the target aimed at becomes smaller such as a leg exposed, etc. Even the Soft Cover definition does not say that missed attacks strike the foes or allies granting the Soft Cover. So no, missed attacks do not strike the mount granting cover, they miss the exposed portion of your body. Mounted Combat does not even apply since the mount is not hit in the first place. Wait, wait...so now the term "cover" is used to describe someone who simply isn't there anymore? There are definately instances when common sense should come into play when regarding the rules.
BattleChaser 03-09-04, 11:38 PM	Ok, from what I gather from this post, if a mount moves more than 5ft, then the rider only gets 1 attack right? So the mount is supposed to be just an extension of the rider, and kind of replaces the movement of the rider. My problem is with the spell 'Spectral Stag' found in the Magic of Faerun. It says "It moves as you direct. Controlling the stag is a free action." So does it mean that it can move as directed by the rider as an independent action, since directing it is a free action? If so, it means that the rider can make a full attack. If not, it'll be just as you described in the above posts. Currently, I am ruling the former. However, if it is the latter, is there any supporting evidence? You know, rule-lawyering players.....:behold: Thanks. Battlechaser:banghead:
Nick Soapdish 03-10-04, 02:21 AM	Directing your horse is also a free action. The limiting factor isn't really how much you've done this round. It's (sort of) time. The mount is (also) using your move action to move.
honeynuggets 03-10-04, 09:19 AM	Wait, wait...so now the term "cover" is used to describe someone who simply isn't there anymore? There are definately instances when common sense should come into play when regarding the rules. Targets behind cover are "still there" but only a small portion of their body is exposed. Under "Varying Degrees of Cover" you will see that it is possible to get cover granting up to +8 AC, +4 Ref by using an arrow slit or peering around a corner (note: unless you have a gaze attack peering around a corner does not enable you to do much of anything. The maximum cover you can take and still attack with say a ranged weapon is +4 AC, +2 Ref cover) Definitely common sense should come into play. If you say that missed attacks strike the mount granting cover then you are essentially giving the attacker two targets, one of which is automatically hit. That makes no common sense. It would be a win-win situation. "I'll just say I attack the rider and if it misses I still hit the mount!" An attack against someone with cover is aimed at their exposed body part. Firing an arrow at a leg hung over a horse's saddle and missing means that the arrow flew over the leg.
evoken_november 03-10-04, 10:12 AM	honeynuggets, I have always been under the impression that if the attacker missed because of the cover bonus (i.e. the attack roll indicates that your character would be hit had you not been taking cover) that the attack strikes the covering object, at which point the attack roll is compared to the covering object's AC to determine if the covering object is damaged. Why have I been under this impression? Because that's how firing into a melee works according to the PHB (at least the 3.0 one, which I still use). If someone is between you and your target they offer a cover bonus, and have a chance to take a hit from a blow aimed at the actual target, yes? Why should using your mount for cover be any different? Look on page 123 of the 3.0 PHB if you have it, and you'll see the diagram I'm basing this off of. I don't imagine this is something that would have changed between 3.0 and 3.5, but has 3.5 changed this rule somehow?
honeynuggets 03-10-04, 11:55 AM	That certainly makes sense to me logically. The diagram in PHB v3.0 makes it an official rule in v3.0 That diagram is not in PHB v3.5 and the rule is not in the entire text either. The rule is not in the v3.5 SRD either. Therefore, it's not an official v3.5 rule.
TheGogmagog 03-10-04, 12:46 PM	Good to know. I think it's better without the 'hitting cover rule' because of the 'funkieness' that the original poster was concerned about. Also, I'd like to mention that as there is no facing in 3.5 that cover from 'things in your control' are omni-directional. You can look at it two ways. 1) Buy the rules it's possible, the combattant is constantly shifting the mount or tower shield to deflect all blows. or 2) Logically it's not possible. Now you need to develop facing rules, and how that affects spot checks, archers, rogues, flanking, etc.....
exploding_brain 03-10-04, 01:18 PM	The "hitting cover instead of the target" rule is now an variant presented in a sidebar on page 24 of the DMG. It is a rule that can create some strange situations. If you want a rationalization for why the mount wouldn't be hit, try this: A mount and rider in combat are not a static system. From moment to moment, the rider exposes different parts of his body to attack. The attacker is waiting for the split second when the mount doesn't block his attack. Maybe the attacker times it wrong and swing at the rider's head just as the rider is pulling his head back down behind his mount. The attackers sword whistles through the air where the rider's head was a moment ago, rather that hitting the part of the mount that's between the rider and the attacker.
Zaebos 03-10-04, 04:07 PM	bad information? Since it is a variant rule you can't rightly call anything 'bad information' regarding this rule. it is listed in the DMG, therefor it is an 'official' variant rule. I would say that a DM should disallow the rule 'using mount as cover' if you are not using the 'Striking the cover instead of a missed target' varaint. Why you ask? The 'using mount as cover' rule will become greatly abused. Normally, people get a bonus and take a negative with most situations if they want to do something special. If you can't hit the cover, then it is an automatic cover bonus with no penalty. If you rule with the 'striking cover' rule, then the penalty is that your horse may be hit, limiting the abusive factor that players will use against those DM's who don't play with the variant.
honeynuggets 03-10-04, 07:35 PM	Using a mount for cover is not an abuse. Having a mount raises your party level for purposes of determining encounter difficulty. If the mount is a class feature then using it has already been calculated into the class's strengths and the class has suffered some penalty for being able to have a mount without raising their effective level. The players pays skill points to develop the Ride skill and gets benefits that mostly come into use only during outdoor adventures.
lseelba 03-11-04, 10:29 AM	Originally posted by honeynuggets Using a mount for cover is not an abuse. Having a mount raises your party level for purposes of determining encounter difficulty. If the mount is a class feature then using it has already been calculated into the class's strengths and the class has suffered some penalty for being able to have a mount without raising their effective level. The players pays skill points to develop the Ride skill and gets benefits that mostly come into use only during outdoor adventures. Actually using a mount for cover is an abuse if you don't use the "hitting cover" variant rule. First of all, I don't consider it a variant rule, because (A) it makes sense, and (B) it was a core part of 3.0. Cover grants you bonuses because there is a chance you hit cover instead of what you are targeting. If you hit the cover, and the cover happens to be living, you might hurt it. This is the danger of firing into combat (you might hit your ally) and using a mount as cover (your horse might get hit). The choice is yours, and there should be an upside and a downside to the choice. Secondly, please inform me where in the rules it states that owning a horse raises your party level. If you are simply implying that DM's should raise outdoor encounters when characters are mounted, I agree. However, this is clearly a bonus (not a penalty as you imply) to the players. They get more xp for a balanced encounter when they are mounted than they do for a balanced encounter when they are not mounted. Quickly your players will realize this and will always want to be mounted. Some builds (i.e. the halfing paladin) actually exploit this. If you allow mounts to never be hit and allow riding characters to always get a +4 to AC with no penalty, you are in essence giving them a powerful item with no tangible downside. If you are convinced that this is not an abuse, I want to be a halfling paladin in your campaign and I will prove to you how much it can be abused. My somehow invincible riding dog and I will rule the day :)
lseelba 03-11-04, 10:32 AM	Originally posted by TheGogmagog Good to know. I think it's better without the 'hitting cover rule' because of the 'funkieness' that the original poster was concerned about. Also, I'd like to mention that as there is no facing in 3.5 that cover from 'things in your control' are omni-directional. You can look at it two ways. 1) Buy the rules it's possible, the combattant is constantly shifting the mount or tower shield to deflect all blows. or 2) Logically it's not possible. Now you need to develop facing rules, and how that affects spot checks, archers, rogues, flanking, etc..... You are correct that there is no facing in 3.5. This is the primary reason that the tower shield no longer provides cover (it now provides a shield bonus) and the shield spell no longer provides cover. However, anything in 3.5 that provides cover is directional. A wall directly to your north provides cover from any ranged attacks coming from the north. An ally directly to your east provides cover from reach weapon attacks coming from the east. If you can provide me with one instance where direction isn't key to cover, I'll eat my argument. However, due to the way they changed facing, since using your mount as cover gives you a cover bonus to AC, and not a shield bonus to AC, I argue that by its very nature it is directional. Using your mount as cover should only provide you cover from attacks in one direction. I will continue to interpret the rules this way, and if you are flanked, you will have to chose which opponent you want cover from. Please don't try to tell me that if I am surrounded by 12 orcs I can somehow get cover from all of them by passing a simple DC 15 ride check!
honeynuggets 03-11-04, 11:13 AM	If you are simply implying that DM's should raise outdoor encounters when characters are mounted, I agree. However, this is clearly a bonus (not a penalty as you imply) to the players. They get more xp for a balanced encounter when they are mounted than they do for a balanced encounter when they are not mounted. Quickly your players will realize this and will always want to be mounted. Well let's see. Four 1st lvl characters have EL 1 which equates to Two Orcs as being an "appropriate challenge" DMG Adding four Heavy Warhorses CR 2 should greatly increase the party's EL. I don't know of a rule in the Core books that says you have to add regular mounts to a party's EL but it does make sense and I know that you are a fan of things making sense. 8) However, Living Greyhawk does have a specific rule and table regarding EL and regular mounts. The party's EL in the above case would become EL 3 which equates to 5-6 orcs. If a party of 1st level characters on heavy warhorses want to take on that many orcs then I say they deserve more exp. A single hit will probably kill them and send the horse running away riderless. Most 1st level parties would consider this situation more of a penalty.
Fixxxer 03-11-04, 11:25 AM	Originally posted by honeynuggets Adding four Heavy Warhorses CR 2 should greatly increase the party's EL. I don't know of a rule in the Core books that says you have to add regular mounts to a party's EL but it does make sense and I know that you are a fan of things making sense. 8) Speaking of big fans, since you're such a big fan of stating the locations of rules in the 3.5 books (and pointing out that if a rule isn't specifically included, it's not core) then please tell me where it is stated that mounts raise the party level.
lseelba 03-11-04, 11:33 AM	Originally posted by honeynuggets If a party of 1st level characters on heavy warhorses want to take on that many orcs then I say they deserve more exp. A single hit will probably kill them and send the horse running away riderless. Most 1st level parties would consider this situation more of a penalty. I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment. Thank goodness heavy warhorses are 400 gp and well outside a 1st level character's budget. Otherwise this would be a problem.
honeynuggets 03-11-04, 11:41 AM	Some builds (i.e. the halfing paladin) actually exploit this. If you allow mounts to never be hit and allow riding characters to always get a +4 to AC with no penalty, you are in essence giving them a powerful item with no tangible downside. If you are convinced that this is not an abuse, I want to be a halfling paladin in your campaign and I will prove to you how much it can be abused. My somehow invincible riding dog and I will rule the day Your sentence structure has an either intentional or unintentional deceptive structure. Nobody is suggesting that mounts can "never be hit" or are "somehow invincible". The mount can be hit if the foe directs an attack against it just like anyone else. Maybe you meant to say "If you allow mounts to not be hit when the opponent only misses you by 1-4 and allow..." then you would be correctly adressing the v3.0 rule. There are downsides for the mounted strategy. The investment of: Skill points, and probably riding feats, gold piece costs of mounts and saddles and upkeep. If you only use your summoned mount then it's only with you for a limited time. There are almost no downsides for using cover whether it be a tree or a mount according to the rules. It is called good strategy.
honeynuggets 03-11-04, 11:53 AM	Speaking of big fans, since you're such a big fan of stating the locations of rules in the 3.5 books (and pointing out that if a rule isn't specifically included, it's not core) then please tell me where it is stated that mounts raise the party level. No need to ask me a question I have already answered. I stated that I personally couldn't find a rule in the core books stating that regular mounts are added to the party's EL. It might exist but I can't find it.
anders 03-11-04, 12:37 PM	ist it somewhere in the dmg under EL calculations? (i'm at work so i cant search it up now..) I'm sure everyone would increase the EL of the group if they had a dragon mount, so i dont see why a horse should not. [EDIT] Page 48 dmg. EL is based on the number of creatures in the party. if you encounter a lvl 3 fighter on horse, thats an EL 4. (3 for the fighter, 1 for the horse) If the creature has a CR 3 or more lower than the rest, the DM should use his own jugdement.
honeynuggets 03-11-04, 12:42 PM	Yes, I think they would too. I just can't find the rule.
Krelios 03-11-04, 12:49 PM	You are correct that there is no facing in 3.5. This is the primary reason that the tower shield no longer provides cover (it now provides a shield bonus) and the shield spell no longer provides cover. Actually, the tower shield can give you either a shield bonus or cover. Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else. You are, however, correct about the Shield spell. Shield Abjuration [Force] Level: Sor/Wiz 1 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1 min./level (D) Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance. Unlike with a normal tower shield, you can’t use the shield spell for cover.
Fixxxer 03-11-04, 10:25 PM	Originally posted by anders Page 48 dmg. EL is based on the number of creatures in the party. if you encounter a lvl 3 fighter on horse, thats an EL 4. (3 for the fighter, 1 for the horse) If the creature has a CR 3 or more lower than the rest, the DM should use his own jugdement. Now I may just be missing it, but I don't see this on page 48 of the DMG. It's mott, however, since the question was in regard to mounts raising the PC party's EL (meaning tougher baddies because you have horses), not the EL of opponents.
Zaebos 03-12-04, 05:35 PM	the thread is being skewed by rules locations... It does not say anywhere that a horse increases the 'Party Level' (average level of party). It may increase the encounter level (EL), but it definately does not increase the party level, since by default, ownership of the mount is included in to the character wealth system and by default already calculated in. I do not know how you guys work the system, BUT you DEFINATELY should NOT calculate the party level as EL, or you will throw the entire XP system out of whack. I agree with lseelba. Using a mount to get a cover bonus is abusive if there is not penalty associated with the bonus. Gaining a cover bonus from any living creature most assuredly should incur the hitting cover penalty.