[...] it actually states quite specifically that the rider and mount are two seperate entities. Check the section on Mounted Combat in the Combat chapter where it states [...] they [can] hit the mount but again, this is not due to the rules for mounted combat but rather is an application of the rules for striking cover.
This is the vague cantradiction I'm referring to, argo. If a mount can be hit as if it were cover, then why not if I'm shooting arrows at the rider/mount combo? How about swinging a sword? I mean to say that it's reasonable
to asume that a mount can be hit by a strike that misses its rider, but the vague allusion to rider and mount being one in the Ride skill (and it is there) is contradicted elsewhere, but not not spelled out in other places where it needs to be. It makes for a confusing set of mount rules. Not terrible, just confusing.
It's actually kinda weird, but I'd always go in favor of missed blows agaisnt the rider will hit the mount, but not vice versa. Trying to hit the mount is always easier, at least in my view. In other words, there's a bonus for the rider to hit unmounted opponents (+1) but no adverse condition of being mounted, other than people can take swipes at your mount.
Well, thats giving a big advantage to the infantry. They basically are getting to make two attack rolls for every on and when you consider that mid-level characters will probably have a DV higher than that of their mount there is absolutely no reason not to declare an attack against the rider every time. I think this would be a poor idea.
You seem to be getting overly irritated here, so I'll mind my words, but I never suggessted multiple attack rolls. The single attack roll would be compared to the initial target, be that the rider or the mount, but then compared to the other shoudl a miss occur.
Usually, the mount will have the lower DV, and so the Mounted Combat ffeat goes a long way toward making the calvary soldier that historically fared so well for centuries. However, all it took was crafty infantry leaders using more "guerilla" tactics, and hacking a horse's legs out from under it became a fantastic option for eliminating what ammounted to a tank in the "sword ages".
Not to mention the advent of pikes and other pole arms specifically to dismount or combat mounted riders.
Oh, and as to there being no adverse condition to being mounted... yea thats prety much spot on. Even a cursoury examination of historical warfare should show that calvary have a hudge advantage over infantry
Now that's just not true. Once horse got into infantry lines, if those lines didn't break, it was just bogged down in a morasse of line infantry, pulling the rider down or killing the horse. That may have been why the English didnt' do so well in 1066.
As for all the meta-gaming comments, that's always been my group's reason for not buying horses in D&D campaigns - they dont' last more than about 20 minutes before they wander off, get stolen or get killed. (lol).