Why is that most fantasy medieval settings don't have more

Because it would be clunky as shit and easily abused.

>>54198358
Can't take a horse into a dungeon.

>>54198358
>having to track horse points
Field combat is more the domain of wargames, and those typically do have a large focus on the impact of cavalry on combat.

File: 1470527435226.jpg (643KB, 1351x900px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 1351x900px

If you are talking about crunch, then probably because it's kinda clunky and not many of the individual fighters skills can be used, also hard to dungeon crawl on a horse.

If you are talking purely about settings, then I'm not entirely sure if that's right. But in case: many writers don't really know about medieval combat, how a feudal army actually looked like, many settings are faux-middle ages anyway and writers may find battles that look like a big load of personal 1vs1 duels more exciting to write, more heroic and personal.

File: Hermann-1-Ill-Schemerwoude.jpg (679KB, 855x1250px) Image search: [Google]

679KB, 855x1250px

>>54198358
Because it's irrelevant.

Part of most fantasy settings' DNA stem from early D&D, which require that there be a) dungeons for heroes to explore and b)wilderness travel. It's impractical to drag a horse into a dungeon, and most wilderness travel, taking place on rough ground, does not lend itself well to mounted combat. In fact your optimal use of a horse would probably be as part of a massed charge over relatively flat terrain.

If you want your players to do a lot of mounted combat then I'd try to engineer situations where it might be advantageous to use that. Let them be part of a battle/campaign with lots of cavalry charges.

>>54198358
Can't dungeoncrawl on horseback

>>54198358
Because neckbeards are scared of large, powerful animals like horses, Chad, and Landwhales.

>Lvl 20 horse.