Riding skill

[stormcricket]

Is it worth putting more than 4 points into your riding skill?
I am not sure why you would want to once you can ride warhorses, but am happy to hear reasons why I should.

 

[Ilevus]

Only if you're interested in riding specialised horses. The ones with spirited, stubborn, or champion in their titles. These tend to have better stats than ordinary horses, which then merits a higher riding skill to be able to use them.

Highest I've ever seen is for a Champion Charger, which needed a level 6 riding skill. Beyond that, it's only useful for making you ride and turn faster while mounted. I'm at level 6 myself, and my charger can ride as fast and sometimes faster than my companion's coursers. 

 

[stormcricket]

I wasnt aware that spirited horses required a higher riding skill.
I knew stubborn did and I havent seen many champion horses, let alone being able to afford one.
Thanks for the answer.

 

[Derkylos]

Riding 10+courser+great lance (or other equally slow weapon) is great fun for getting insane speed bonuses. For a rather more practical aspect, being able to outrun a Khergit horse archer on a charger can be quite useful...

 

[hruza]

Only champion horses have increased riding skill requirement. Heavy and spirited does not.

Riding skill increase your riding speed and manoeuvrability. So it is useful regardless of your horse.

 

[Howler]

I would recommend a minimum of 5 if your character is going to be using a horse in a battle primarily. This is due to the difference i notice between 4 and 5 riding skill is great in quick stops and acceleration. E.G. I am charging a line of infantry that suddenly bare pole arms, i am able to quickly stop and turn towards a different section. The reason i tend to stop instead of simple turning is cause when i charge i tend to tell my singuleres to follow me and hit stand closer 2-3 times, giving me little to no room to change direction fast.

but that is only my suggestion.

 

[stormcricket]

Thanks for all the replies, definitely food for thought.
I had capped my knight class companions riding skill at 4 and was doing the same with my character too.
Perhaps that extra point would make them better horsemen and women.

 

[Chaingun]

For companions I think your primary horse objective should be getting them chargers for the armor/HP. After that (i.e. adding riding skill beyond what's required for charger) I doubt you'll see a very big difference due to the AI's lack of intelligence in how it maneuvers its horse. AI tends to not avoid riding into dangerous stuff that stops the horse, so it has no use for greater turning ability/deceleration. Also, IMO AI cav doesn't need any more speed whatsoever since that only leads to them getting further separated from the infantry (the times you try to advance inf and cav together).

Summary: Just add Heavy Chargers to the companions and you're done.

 

[JosieJ]

I think it's worth going over 4 if speed and maneuverability on horseback is important to your build (e.g., a Horse Archer), but otherwise no.

 

[Sven-Mjolnir]

I don't ride, I'm a rhodok sargeant(currently), horses are for the women and the weak..
On topic now I never had a char with more than 4 on riding

 

[Wayfarer]

Horses are for wusses, for us of true mettle, our fights take us to stand in the shield wall, shoulder to shoulder with our battle-brothers!


Actually that's rubbish   I like fighting as infrantry but to actively choose to not ride is silly...  So this has helped me, I hadn't really clicked that increased Riding actually makes your character a better rider, I just looked at it as a number requirement for better horses...  I've only recently started riding warhorses/chargers, I used to always like Coursers because they were simply the fastest - to catch those damned Khergits.

 

[Dryvus]

I would use 8 men to lift my champion charger to shoe it instead of making it lift it's hooves.
IT WOULD BEHOOVE ME

 

[Sven-Mjolnir]

Horses are for wusses, for us of true mettle, our fights take us to stand in the shield wall, shoulder to shoulder with our battle-brothers!


Actually that's rubbish   I like fighting as infrantry but to actively choose to not ride is silly...  So this has helped me, I hadn't really clicked that increased Riding actually makes your character a better rider, I just looked at it as a number requirement for better horses...  I've only recently started riding warhorses/chargers, I used to always like Coursers because they were simply the fastest - to catch those damned Khergits.

well I actually don't ride at all right know, I'm roleplaying a rhodok sergeant and when I noticed that my party speed was the same with or without my horse (because I was the only guy with a horse) I sold it

 

[Northcott]

Playing my knightly Swadian type, I've noticed a considerable difference between having Riding 4 and riding 7. At 4, the damned Khergits rode circles around me and shot me full of arrows.  Victory would still come, but it was damned painful.

At 7, I felt like a freakin' hawk darting around the battlefield, able to accelerate when stopped unexpectedly, and turn more sharply to take advantage of it when the enemy was preoccupied with one of my men. The difference was night and day. Blitzing around the battlefield, running Khergits through or slaughtering their horses so they have to fight on foot -- which meant that both my infantry and cavalry came out of the battles with far fewer casualties. It also makes it much easier for me to do the much riskier -- but very effective -- tactic of sweeping in front of an enemy, stalling his horse and delivering a deadly sword swipe at the same time.

If you're going to do mounted combat, a high riding skill is worth it.

 

[fragonard]

At 7, I felt like a freakin' hawk darting around the battlefield

I don't doubt it but how do you justify spending 21 points on agility. There must be a sacrifice in either strength or leadership which I find to be more important. Is there really such a big benefit for combat?

 

[PocketAces]

Agility also increases your swing speed

 

[Northcott]

At 7, I felt like a freakin' hawk darting around the battlefield

I don't doubt it but how do you justify spending 21 points on agility. There must be a sacrifice in either strength or leadership which I find to be more important. Is there really such a big benefit for combat?

By the time I quit playing one of my characters in old M&B, he was level 40-something... so it wasn't that much of a sacrifice. With my current Warband knight, I'll probably cap him out at 18 agility, as I'm going for a more balanced approach: 21 strength currently, 15 agility... and I plan on raising his Intelligence and Charisma to similar levels.

It very much depends on your play style. As others have pointed out, the advantage in speed is considerable... and when you're dealing with potential one-shot kills (like with a lance and a charging horse), your character's strength is secondary to how he can command the battlefield with speed. When your charger can turn on a dime, get up to a full gallop in just a few seconds, and you can get that lance down even while going up a slight grade... you're going to tear things apart.

High agility also gets you a higher shield skill and a higher athletics score -- both being very useful when you're dismounted and/or in a siege. Your shield not only can take more hits before falling apart, but is more likely to block arrows. To say nothing of the advantage in athletics to make you harder to hit in the first place, to cover ground to get to the archers quicker, and to side-step as you approach so that they're more likely to miss. When you finally reach them and swing you sword, it moves quicker... meaning there's a smaller window of opportunity for his friends to shoot you before you gank Archer 1 and get your shield back up.

I've found that with power strike 5 that's often enough to be a pretty good toe-to-toe fighter. The kings and huscarls only have 7, after all... though huscarls may go higher. If I remember correctly, NPC stats are randomized, and what's provided is merely a base. Still, with 5 you can put up a good fight on foot -- particularly once you've got a good hand weapon. But if you've got a high agility and a good horse, you're Hell on Wheels if the terrain's good for riding. (And if it's not, then why did you let the enemy trap you in the hills?)

That said, my favourite character is probably still my brute tank of a northman who enjoyed fighting on foot just as much (if not more) than on horseback. That character was strength-dominant.

 

[Diputs]

At 7, I felt like a freakin' hawk darting around the battlefield

I don't doubt it but how do you justify spending 21 points on agility. There must be a sacrifice in either strength or leadership which I find to be more important. Is there really such a big benefit for combat?

I'd like to help justify the 21 Agility build, I had a Saaranid character and managed to get my hands on a hafted blade, which is a polearem that can be swung while mounted. I went that route and got either 6 or 7 in riding, 2 power swing, and some of the insanely light but protective Saaranid Mail, and started outmanuvering Khergits, riding just within reach and doing massive damage with the correct timing. Then I got in a siege once and it sucked, but still I had a pretty good time other than that.

 

[Northcott]

I'm trying to think of who it was in the old M&B forums who favoured agility-heavy builds. He was a monster. Fought with a balanced bastard sword for maximum speed and damage combination, jacked his agility and athletics through the roof, and fought on foot with a troop of Vaegir Marksmen. He'd whittle the enemy down with his bow, and then charge in.

If you've really gotten used to the controls, having a high athletics skill and low encumbrance means you're moving like a bolt on the battlefield. So long as you don't let yourself get swarmed (much easier when you're fast) and keep moving, you can become hard to hit and your swings do more damage. If you're good enough that you can consistently time things well and get headshots (I'm not, BTW), you can still 1-shot-kill most foes and outrun those you can't.

It's just a different way of enjoying the game. Me? I like my big brutes with high melee damage.

 

[Mace to Face]

I played a 30 agility 10 athletics character with fairly light gear, with bastard sword, shield and bow.  It was devastating combo, you could swing and move so fast that enemies couldn't land a good hit.  I also had 10 in shield, as it is a Agility skill too. So instead of using heavy armor to protect myself, I used shield and speed, and then when I could get closer, I would two hand the bastard sword and slice away.  I left my other stats at 9 and then continued to raise agility until 30.  It was fun, but I doubt that overall it is as effective as a strength build.