Here is the scenario:
You are a human fighter charging the enemy on horseback. You hit the enemy with a +1 lance. You have the Spirited Charge feat. Your Strength is 18. How do you calculate damage?
Is it 3d8+ 5?
Is it 1d8+5 x3?
Is it 1d8+5 plus 1d8+5 plus 1d8+5?
It is 1d8+5 plus 1d8+5 plus 1d8+5.
Or just 3d8+15.
Are you using the lance in both hands?
If so, 3d8+21. If not, 3d8+15.
Are you using the lance in both hands?
If so, 3d8+21. If not, 3d8+15.
Ok, this brings up another question:
In the same scenario, what would the damage be if you were using the lance in two hands and you were using power attack (8th level)?
Are you using the lance in both hands?
If so, 3d8+21. If not, 3d8+15.
I don't think it should matter in this case.
For one, you're probably holding the reins of your horse with one hand. Or a shield. Or both. But even if you're not, the lance gets its damage from the momentum of the horse; holding it with one or two hands doesn't make the horse run slower or faster.
Technically, the RAW don't make this distinction, so technically your post is correct, but for those of us who like to inject a sense of realism into our gameplay, this is one of those cases where the technical RAW begs to adjused for the sake of realistic physics.
We just multiply in our group, but yeah the base rules would be 3d8+15
Just so we don't muddy up the waters (and your post does, in fact, clearly state your houserule as well as the RAW), here's the official rule:
Multiplying Damage: Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results.
This is why it would be 1d8+5 plus 1d8+5 plus 1d8+5 (which is really 3d8 + 15) and not 1d8+5 x3.
So, what do you suggest? Using the horse's strength instead of the character's when charging?
If the paladin can fight with a sword and shield on horseback, he can certainly charge with both hands on a lance.
I'm all for a sense of realism, but coming up with convoluted house rules for such situations seems like a waste of time. Is it really broken? Does it need to be fixed? I don't think so.
From a game mechanics stand-point, giving up the AC of the shield for the extra damage is a fair trade-off.
From a roleplaying stand-point, it's more dramatic to see the knight throw aside his shield in hopes of achieving the killing blow.
Are you using the lance in both hands?
If so, 3d8+21. If not, 3d8+15.
Ok, this brings up another question:
In the same scenario, what would the damage be if you were using the lance in two hands and you were using power attack (8th level)?
At 8th level (assuming no multiclassing so our fighter has a BAB of 8), Power Attack is -3 to hit and +6 damage, or +9 damage with a 2H weapon.
This makes your base lance damage, using Power Attack, 1d8+11, or 1d8+14 using it with two hands (which as I've stated above seems inconsistent with believable physics but is well within the RAW).
With Spirited Charge, that comes 3d8+33, or 3d8+42 with two hands.
If the paladin can fight with a sword and shield on horseback, he can certainly charge with both hands on a lance.
Except that the paladin doesn't 'swing' or even 'trust' the lance as much as cupping it and bracing himself on the saddle, leaving the momentum of the horse (with him on it) do the rest of the work.
In that regard, the STR of the paladin (or the fact that he's holding the weapon 1-H or 2-H) is less relevant than the size and speed of its horse.
As far as the abstraction of a RPG goes, the fact that a rider uses the mass of the horse and its speed (since he's charging) instead of 'trusting' or 'swinging' the weapon is represented well enough by a simple x2 mod to damage. Its clean, easy to use and to the point. YMMV of course...
'findel
|
Well, D&D has always used different rules than the real world... In our group we have a saying: D&D-1 Physics-0
Of course, that number has probably jumped up considerably for how many times we've used it, but you get the idea
EDIT: Also, people that argue about how unrealistic certain melee actions are tend to get struck down by a magic spell cast by a wizard and nobody bats an eye
One might argue that the representation of how well the rider can use the momentum of his mount is directly proportional to his strength. I.E. just use his strength score.
A weak rider wouldn't be able to hold onto the lance at impact. A strong rider could withstand the force and drive more of that energy into the unfortunate foe.
As far as the concern for how much damage output this creates... I don't think it's a big deal. Let that player specialize. It's up to the GM to change up the encounters. If your group had a paladin and all you fought was Undead/Evil Outsiders/Evil Dragons, you'd have the same concern. The point it, you can't always use a mount. Even if you can, you can't always set up a nice charge. If the stars align and you do, woe unto that unfortunate soul who stood his ground in your path.
So, what do you suggest? Using the horse's strength instead of the character's when charging?
Nah, that would be too awkward. Besides, wielding a lance from horseback is simply a matter of momentum. The wielder's strenth is really only a factor in how steadily he can hold the tip of the lance on target. The high saddle-back and rigidity of his armor will hold the lance in place against the shock of impact - hardly any strength needed for this part, and certainly not the horse's strength.
If the paladin can fight with a sword and shield on horseback, he can certainly charge with both hands on a lance.
Agreed. It just wouldn't matter.
I'm all for a sense of realism, but coming up with convoluted house rules for such situations seems like a waste of time. Is it really broken? Does it need to be fixed? I don't think so.
Nah, hardly convoluted. See below.
From a game mechanics stand-point, giving up the AC of the shield for the extra damage is a fair trade-off.
Certainly.
From a roleplaying stand-point, it's more dramatic to see the knight throw aside his shield in hopes of achieving the killing blow.
Agreed - but but only if his tactic would actually help achieve the killing blow. Otherwise, it's just a silly gesture that trades something for nothing.
You asked what I suggest. I take the RAW and add just a single word to it. See? Not complex at all. I've bolded my word:
A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can only wield a lance with one hand.
No it's not RAW. Yes it's a houserule. But to me, a sensible one. YMMV, obviously.
I have seen argued that 2 Handed weapons use strength and a half. Even when used as a 1 handed weapon, the lance is still a 2 handed weapon, and therefore uses str x1.5. I do not have a stance on this, but it was a decent sized debate in the Cavalier playtest.
As to the OP's question about power attack. The Power Attack damage would be multiplied. The extra damage from charging with a lance is just like a critical hit in that regard, and stacks the same way. If you were somehow getting precision based damage, it would not multiply.
Very reasonable.
EDIT: I really need to learn the syntax for quoting, bolding, etc. I don't get on many forums. Can anyone point me to where I can learn this stuff.
EDIT: Also, people that argue about how unrealistic certain melee actions are tend to get struck down by a magic spell cast by a wizard and nobody bats an eye
Apples and oranges.
Obviously, since I play this game, I accept fantastical things the defy realism. Elves and wizards and ogres exist. Fireballs and magical healing and flaming swords and all that stuff.
The reason why this is apples vs. oranges is that there are two kinds of constructs in this game:
1. Take something that does NOT exist in our real world and make rules for it in the game. Hence, we have Fireballs. Fine with me. It can be whatever we want it to be since it is purely make-believe. All I ask is that the rules for it are consistent with the rest of the system.
2. Take something that DOES exist in our real world and make rules for it. Also fine with me. But it CANNOT be whatever we want it to be since it is not make-believe at all. It's real in our world. What I ask here is that the game representation of these rules bears an acceptable semblence to the real-world actual mechanics.
That's why I can argue for realism in how a lance injures a foe, and not "bat an eye" when a magic spell strikes my character down.
Very reasonable.
EDIT: I really need to learn the syntax for quoting, bolding, etc. I don't get on many forums. Can anyone point me to where I can learn this stuff.
When you are posting, right below the box where you are typing your text you will see this:
"BBCode tags you can use: " followed by a button that is labeled "Show". Click that button and it will display a whole bunch of options for you.
You can copy/paste most of those right into your text and simply edit your own content as needed.
I have seen argued that 2 Handed weapons use strength and a half. Even when used as a 1 handed weapon, the lance is still a 2 handed weapon, and therefore uses str x1.5. I do not have a stance on this, but it was a decent sized debate in the Cavalier playtest.
Even as a 'realistic' stand, there are arguments in favor of that.
Bracing yourself on a saddle would make full use of stirrups, knee and leg muscles, abs, shoulders etc, potentially enhanced by proper riding gear, boots and so forth. In other words, one could argue that a rider uses enough of his body to 'worth' 2-handed bonus to damage even if the weapon is actually held with one hand...
Actually, here's a houserule for ya:
Equipment - Stirrups: Allow a rider to add STR x 1.5 to weapon damage when wielding a lance while mounted, even if the weapon is used one handed. Normally, a character's STR modifier to damage is not multiplied when using a weapon one-handed.
You can copy/paste most of those right into your text and simply edit your own content as needed.
Ok, I just been learned. Thanks.
I believe we have to accept that the game we enjoy so much in not perfect nor anywhere near it. Not only do they have to created rules for the "real" world, but these rules have to be clear (as they can be) and not clash with themselves.
It's problematic to have every set of circumstances use different rules.
It may not be possible to model Real World mechanics in a board game. Even if it was, who wants to play a game where you need to be a physics major to fully understand the rules?
|
Meh, it just seems wrong to me to penalize a charging build by taking away the 2-handed bonus with the lance.
Heck, it can't be used in most dungeons anyhow.
Also, there are two general ways to use a lance.
Couched and non-couched.
Couched refers to the under or overarm style that has the lance strapped to a single arm.
Non-couched lances were held in both hands, and weren't strapped down.
Couched lances allowed a rider to wield a shield on his other arm, but reduced the total range of the lance by a foot or so.
Non-couched lances gave the rider additional striking range, but sacrificed the freedom of the offhand.
So, yes, 1-handed or 2-handed, depending on how you choose to wield it.
Generally speaking, you might use a non-couched lance against other lancers *to guarantee that they don't have better range*, and you might use a couched lance when attacking infantry in order to use sword and shield after your initial charge.
Google is my friend, and how I discovered this information. :)
IMO, one handed= lance, two handed=long spear, and since you only get triple damage with a lance....
But it does give the mounted specialist something to fight with when he is in the dungeon. I'd house rule to allow WF: lance to apply to long spear dismounted, just to make up for taking his horsey away :)
At the same time however you are putting all your eggs in one basket. With a full attack (at later levels of course... levels 1~3 are not quite the same) you can spread out the damage and get some even if the first attack misses... with charging it's all or nothing.
Low prerequisites yes, but as you pointed out not all day and not everywhere.
so what happens when you manage to get a critical hit when you charge with spirited charge? considering a lance has a crit of 3X and spirited charge is 3X, what would the total damage be? assuming you have str 18
would you add the multipliers? 3+3=6
(1D8+4)X 6...or (1D8+4)+(1D8+4)+(1D8+4)+(1D8+4)+(1D8+4)+(1D8+4)
or would you multiply the multipliers? 3X3=9
(1D8+4)X 9...
(1D8+4)+(1D8+4)+(1D8+4)+(1D8+4)+(1D8+4)+(1D8+4)+(1D8+4)+(1D8+4)+(1D8+4)
Thread necro! I just answered this question earlier today in another thread as well.. But, you add the multipliers together as such:
Total multiplier = 1 + (Mul1 - 1) + (Mul2 - 1) + etc...
So, a Critical with Spirited Charge = 1 + 2 + 2 = x5.
A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can only wield a lance with one hand.
i disagree. The intent, as was clearer in 3.5, is rather
A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand even though it's a two-handed weapon.
even if you dont have the feats, it still gives some incentive to use a lance rather than a club when mounted.
My houserule on this is goes a bit furher, and would beA lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted and charging, you can wield a lance with one hand (even though it's a two-handed weapon).
The discusison whether strength and power attack should matter is relevant, but personally I like that mounted charges are more devastating than sneak attacks with kithcen knives.
Also, this does mean that a 20th lvl. Cavalier with Supreme Charge gets some insane multipliers on a crit, like x3 x3 x3 = x7
I just hope no full Cavalier ever gets Pounce, because that would be ridiculous (that's 4 attacks at x5 and possibly criticals at x7).
The level 20 ability doesn't grant an extra x3. It improved the existing x3 of Spirited Charge to x4 for lances (or, if you don't have Spirited Charge, then from x2 to x3). So a crit from Supreme Charge only does x(1 + 3 + 2) or x6 damage. Still crazy though given Power Attack gives +18 damage with a two-hander, and Challenge gives +20 at level 20.
With a non-magical lance, Str of 13 (minimum for Power Attack), and assuming NOT an Order of the Sword, you've got 6d8+234 on a successful crit.
I just hope no full Cavalier ever gets Pounce, because that would be ridiculous (that's 4 attacks at x5 and possibly criticals at x7).
Not to mention that at 20th level, the mount could easily have a strength of 30+, wear heavy armor, and attack on its own (bite) for 6d6+15 dmg
Most likely not. The lance is a Reach weapon. At the end of the charge, your horse can't actually reach the target with hoof or bite.
A reasonable DM might houserule that if you're using Ride-by-Attack that the horse gets a bite on the way past and have it count as a charge attack.
I believe the intent of Supreme Charge is a modifier (specifically, a buff) to Spirited Charge. It basically gives you the *exact* benefits of Spirited Charge if you didn't already have the feat.
Interpreting your way (which I can see how, since that was my first thought as well before I imagined my DM shooting it down) would make the Cavalier able to OHKO many more things.
Well it is a Capstone ability, so it had better be good, but still I see many DMs wanting to nerf this ability (probably including my own)