Crowned Crossroads's page

I concur with Happler.

Although, the root of the issue is not simply one reading, but also the possibility of dual-ing lances for the added charge damage. Even if the damage is applied only twice, about 300+ damage is enough to seriously wound most creatures and kill most PCs; it's a hefty first strike.

@ Tom

I'm quite certain the issue was addressed in regards to any subsequent attacks made as part of a pounce. Please read the FAQs that was provided by Happler.

@ James

I'm not sure where it says that - two-weapon fighting is always interpreted as one attack after another, like a normal full attack. However, I'll leave the decision to DMs on that one.

In regards to the "silly" things - this whole discussion (the original discussion which I also supplemented) was based on these ideas. If you want to disregard the inspiring point of the discussion, or relevant references, then you obviously do not belong in this discussion.

@ Chaos

By disregarding the majority of the topic, you're also ignoring some of the good points which have been brought up. If you're not willing to read and participate in the discussion, don't create spam.

BltzKrg242 wrote:

If you only have one hand on then you do not get the 2 handed bonus.

Using two lances is patently ridiculous and attempting it should be met with 1000 lashes from a wet noodle and then a punch in the throat.

If someone tried to use two lances and hit with both, I would rule they are automatically unhorsed...then the next time when they tie themselves to their saddle (which you know power gamers would attempt) I would have the horses STR deal damage to them as they're torn from the saddle.

Your personal, arbitrary ruling isn't something that is needed. It contributes nothing to the discussion at-hand, given the prior mention that DMs may deal with this in whatever way they want, but the important part of the discussion is how it should be dealt with objectively based purely on the rules.

@ James

1) You're missing the point of why I proposed this ludicrous build in the first place. It was meant to be on par with the broken "Am Barbarian" build. Refer to Am Barbarian and my earlier posts. This build has no practical use that I am willing to recognize, it is merely a proof of concept.

2) The logic is sound but as I've noted several times before with the OP, you can try to be as logical as you want, or not at all. In the end, it's the DM's call in the end. However, in the case where there is no DM and there needs to be some objective ruling, you read the rules as they are.

3) It depends on how you play. You can play a fighter with a core build in mind and supplement it, or you can build it completely by stacking out your parameters (feats, items, etc.). I usually go for the latter, personally.

@ Brox

I can see how it might be a problem, but it's not as if you're swinging a huge sword around. Lances stab. There's not much movement that would be inhibited by the horse (or other mount). You have a lance on either side of its head - they stab - the deed is done.

@ Happler

I would consider that FAQs a fine proof for the issue of subsequent attacks. It is a shame that the broken Damage multiplier would only apply to the first (two?) attacks. Regardless, it still does quite a bit of damage if they all hit.

Crowned Crossroads wrote:

Come now, gentlemen. You're blowing this whole thing out of proportion.

The lance is still the category of a two-handed weapon. Likewise a longsword wielded in two hands is still a one-handed weapon.

That said, the dual wielding lances suffers from a few things:

1. It would need pounce or a late game (14th level) feat in order to attack with both using TWF when the mount moves more than 5'.

2. Even with a version of pounce, you would only gain the benefit of 'charging' with the first attack, likely removing your desire to do so even with the -4/-4 penalties.

3. Power attack and strength bonus for the off-hand weapon would also be lower baring yet even more feats.

-James

1) This was only intended for end-game/near-end-game. Review Am Barbarian's posts.

2) I'm not quite sure it only applies to the first attack. If you could reference it, it would be helpful.

3) Feats aren't a huge issues for fighters. As Am Barbarian has said, fighters are like centipedes, with their many feets.

Unless said dual lance wielder is sporting the Two weapon fighting feat he's eating a -6/-10 penalty anyway!

--Vrocking Horse

For the most part, dual wielding without the feat is lunacy. With the feat the negs are -4/-4. (reduced by another 2 from charge).

Do fighter's really need to resort to exploits of such random abilities & abuse of such things for people to find them useful? I would love to play a fighter, but they are well used by many fellow players so often I am placed into other roles for the benefit of the party.

Fighter's while not the highest damage class in the game still have such a wide diversity that they do well in their place, without a few front lines those Wizards will never get far after all.

Of course not. Fighters are amazing as it is - they're my most-used class, to be honest. However, I did note that this build was done with reference to Am Barbarian's Rage-Lance-Pounce build. This is simply a proof of concept, and ego boost, for all the fighters out there.

Come now, gentlemen. You're blowing this whole thing out of proportion.

Before I begin, I shall introduce myself as the one who inspired this debate. Given such a position, I shall state that it was my never intention to put this ridiculous build into an actual campaign. As a fellow DM, I would most certainly rule it out - despite the fact that I find it to be a legitimate build. The primary intention of this build was to create something akin to the "Am Barbarian" concept.

I'll get to the actual build later, if people want to see it (which does trump Am Barbarian in terms of damage output).

So, the debate is if the "two-handed lance" can be used "one-handed".

Let's begin by dissecting this little tidbit.

The "lance" weapon is something under the "two-handed weapon" category. Thus, as long as it is appropriately sized (and some DMs may even rule if it is not), it gains the benefits from things which have some basis on how they are used.

So, in the usage of "Backswing (Ex)" of the Two-Handed Weapon Fighter archetype, the fighter gains the ability to add twice his strength to damage on every attack after the first (in a full attack).

This is simple enough and abide by the rules, and should be unanimously accepted.

However, the trouble comes when you begin to attempt to dual wield lances of the appropriate size. Essentially, you're wielding two two-handed weapons. This is madness. Or is it?

In the description for a lance it says:

"A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."

So, what does this tell us? The two-handed lance can be used in one hand while charging on a mount. No where in that description does it say that it changes categories, rendering the two-handed weapon benefits null. Given this, it's a simple one-plus-one. You add another lance in the other hand and it's a done deal.

I realize that the descriptive text implies that it becomes a one-handed weapon, if read in such a way; however, the case is simply that it does not state the implication outright.

For the record, the Am Barbarian-counter build is made entirely of Pathfinder material, without the need to import any broken things from D&D 3.5.

On an unrelated note, as much as I like playing magic men, I do support Am Barbarian.

Finally, I'd like to say that this build should only be used as proof of concept and a way for Paizo to make adjustments so broken things like this don't come about so easily.

This was made for the pride of Fighters.