I'm curious as to how other games handle steeds. My game has just turned level 12 (and 1 year of campaign) and I gave my players all steeds at the very start, back at level 8.

The problem now is that they are very attached to their steeds, and their steeds are comparatively extremely squishy. I don't want to warp the world so they don't get hit, so I've opted to give them 10 extra HP for now and possibly bump that up a bit in the future.

I've heard it mentioned many times that Steeds can become liabilities in combat at higher levels because their low hitpoints make them die to AOE's which are just painful for the characters. So, my question is, do you change anything for this? Do you embrace that steeds are temporary? Or do you just abandon them for good after a certain level?

Mine normally are left in safe locations during quests. So, next time they're investigating a pirate ship, the mounts (which are actually Axebeaks) will be left a safe distance from the shop while they explore. That's most of the dangerous encounters taken care of, only random and roadside encounters might be an issue normally and they rarely have AoE.

If they still die...then they die I guess.

Given we have three different sets of "subsystems" for Mounted Combat among our group, I'll say that this isn't a problem we've had in a very long while, if ever. Mounts are ounts to us -- and that's a pleasant way of saying that they make good meatshields from folks who role played the Tauntaun survival stuff in the 80's lol.

Exceptions I can think of are Paladin Warhorses, familiars, and companions, who all tend to have more closely tied personalities and relationships, and I am willing to guess you gave these steeds that kind of personality stuff.

Creatures which are not meant to see combat shouldn't go where there will be combat. It is part of why wilderness situations are a challenge -- horses are moved away from a camp because they poop all the time, need protection by a watch from thieves and predators, are good eating for predators, and cost a lot of money, so are an easy target.  Familiars and the like generally don't, so they are easy to handle, but some stuff like a Warhorse just might charge in and get hurt.

That is part of the game, though -- that decision, role playing through that loss, and finding a way through grief (granted, I am older and have Seen Some Snit, so I can at least handle that some of the time).

I will be blunt -- if this is a no go line for your players, then don't go there. If it is just simply painful and unpleasant, then suggest they leave them with someone who they hope an ensure the safety.

On the other hand, that kind of close relationship allows you to turn to the time honored tradition of the Antagonists grabbing the steeds and holding them ransom, and if they have that kind of a bond with them, then those poor Villains will be unleashing the fury of parental power, lol.

We don't change anything for this. We embrace that steeds -- that all things that might be killed *can* be killed. Our games have a much higher fatality rate than the mean, though, for everything (including PCs). However, we do not abandon them at any level.

If they live, they live. If the Players choose to let them go, then they get let go. I might use them as plot devices, butfor the most part I let them be (and, really, for the most part I let layers role play their characters if they have some facility at it).

We don’t really use mounts except for when someone plays a paladin. 
One idea I’ve heard is to treat them like sidekicks using the warrior variant. Not sure if, or even how, that could be abused, but it might work. 

I warn my players that their pets and animals that they bring along are at the same risk they have.  They take their chances. 

Warning the players well enough about what could happen and the players tend to keep that in mind.  I've never, with those warnings, had a player lose a pet or animal. 

Only cause they know that they could lose them. Which would be their fault for taking them into a dangerous situation. 

Quote from Xalthu >>

We don’t really use mounts except for when someone plays a paladin. 
One idea I’ve heard is to treat them like sidekicks using the warrior variant. Not sure if, or even how, that could be abused, but it might work. 

 If the characters want to be able to ride their steeds into combat, then I would second the suggestion of using the Sidekick rules. They’re designed for bolstering low-CR creatures up to a point where they can survive alongside  characters as they level up. They’re generally not as powerful as PCs. 

I don't change anything. If the steeds die to the AoE or single target attack then they die. The player characters shouldn't have taken them into combat without giving the mount armor and taking the Mounted Combatant feat that allows to redirect an attack from the mount to the character. 

To keep it simple, give mounts extra hp like sidekicks. So, if the party averages 5th level, give the mounts an extra 5 hit dice.

I would only do this if the mounts are used in combat. Adventuring is a dangerous profession. Pets and your favorite riding horse should be left at home.

Thanks all!

Main reason I'm asking is because I'm putting together some homebrew on Steeds, with a view t omaking them more survivable as you gain levels, and more useful, whilst keeping them on par with one another, so one player can have a warhorse and the other can have a giant wolf and it's still balanced!

Seems a fairly mixed bag of responses, with a fair amount of "if they die, they die" and another amount of using the Sidekick rules.

Out of curiosity, how do you all feel about characters having different mounts, EG one player wanting a giant wolf, another wanting a horse, another wanting a Drake, that sort of thing?

Quote from ThorukDuckSlayer >>

Thanks all!

Main reason I'm asking is because I'm putting together some homebrew on Steeds, with a view t omaking them more survivable as you gain levels, and more useful, whilst keeping them on par with one another, so one player can have a warhorse and the other can have a giant wolf and it's still balanced!

Seems a fairly mixed bag of responses, with a fair amount of "if they die, they die" and another amount of using the Sidekick rules.

Out of curiosity, how do you all feel about characters having different mounts, EG one player wanting a giant wolf, another wanting a horse, another wanting a Drake, that sort of thing?

 
Size matters!

Or, more precisely, size of a mount compared to a rider matters.  While horses range from giant warhorses down to ponies, the need for multiple mounts is one of the "fantasy" parts of a fantasy game.  Halfling wolf riders, Dwarven Turtle masters, Goblin velociraptor riders, ostrich and snake riders, giant insect mounted faery riders -- mount variety ia big deal in some worlds -- and meaningless in others.  When it come sto having options, more is always better.

For a supplemental system, go more towards the Sidekick rules, nad also be aware that the mounted combat subsystem is in need of a good look and slight reworking. 

I mention this because there is a world of difference between "what does a player do in this circumstance" and developing out a system. It makes your initial post a bit of a bait and switch, because the answers can change dramatically -- especially on a site where custom worldbuilding is heavily deprecated.

I will indeed be going over the mounted combat rules for an overhaul!

Regarding the variety of mounts, I am aiming to make a good variety of options available. The current system I've devised involves picking 2 traits for a generic Steed, which you reskin to match your Traits. So if you want to be riding a miniature Dragon Turtle, you'd pick the Armoured and Aquatic sub-types.

The goal is that no player feels diddled that they have one steed whilst someone else has one which is statistically better.

This stemmed from the original goal to just add hitpoints as you level up, but now I've got rules for making your own steeds from scratch! I reckon I've covered most of the bases for making steeds which you can take with you on adventures!

Another thing to look at might be the drakewarden. The drakes get to be pretty solid, and can be resummoned at a fairly low cost. Which could be another solution, make them summoned magical creatures, so if they do die, they can come back more easily. 
And the UA find steed might give you some ideas.

Quote from Xalthu >>

Another thing to look at might be the drakewarden. The drakes get to be pretty solid, and can be resummoned at a fairly low cost. Which could be another solution, make them summoned magical creatures, so if they do die, they can come back more easily. 
And the UA find steed might give you some ideas.

I feel that with Drakewarden, Battlesmith, Beastmaster, and Find Steed / Find Greater Steed, there're options enough for people who want to summon a steed. I'm more interested in people like my party who started with a steed, and found that after some levels it was too dangerous to keep them, which is a feel-bad sort of situation for me.

What about using the Sidekick rules for them? That would make them more durable, but also would introduce another combatant to the fray.

My players would get steeds and then safe keep them in a farm they owned as home base, they only used them for long distances.

I haven’t been able to have players in a campaign long enough to come across this issue, but if it came up I would just exclude the mounts from combat unless the Players wanted them in it. If the mounts died, they could undertake an adventure to find the means to bring them back if they choose to. But only once.

I have only included mounts in certain parts of the campaign where overland travel is needed. We will have a few "mounted encounters" and then reach an area that is better explored on foot. It keeps it from getting stale but still allows bonds to be formed and growth to happen.

One way to handle the mechanics is to just ignore mounts entirely as targets or combatants. They just become a part of the "PC blob" and are no different from a magic item that provides an alternate movement speed, size, and maybe one other kind of special ability. Upon dismount, the mounts run off the battlefield to be retrieved later. I've found this to be overall just much more enjoyable to play because you can focus on the battle and not have to reference your mount rules 5 times each round or worry about AOEs and opportunity attacks and all the other issues with essentially doubling the amount of creatures on the battlefield.

We have always has squishy mounts.

If you think they should not be for some reason then you need to realize that in olden times mounted combatants would honorably not target the others mounts. Trained mounts were expensive. They would also ransom each other off instead of killing them.

Riding horses were cheaper and most bandits didn't take them because it was like stealing a car. You just couldn't ride around on one because everyone knew you were poor and couldn't afford one.

In the game we just bought a new riding horse when we needed one. Or even a wagon and ox for general travel.