Now, for the two-handed lance thing... what if a character had four arms, two on each side? Like a thri-kreen or a xorn, for example? Would using the two arms on the same side count as wielding it two-handed?
I've actually seen rules for that somewhere, but don't recall where right off hand. May have been in relation to thri-kreen (and may have even been from the old Dark Sun material rather than 3.x). As I recall, a 2-handed weapon had two be wielded by arms from opposite sides (i.e. one right and one left or such). I'll dig around and see if I can find specifics...
I've got to say, thinking of a xorn riding a horse with a lance..that's a pretty funny scene!
Another thing to think about while we're pondering unusual character races:
What about centaurs with lances? Are they pretty much always considered mounted for the purposes of Spirited Charge?
I would count them as being mounted. Any similarly shaped creature as well... perhaps as a function of stability?
*imagines a dwarf running down a hall with a lance*
When I made up a centaur knight a while back I gave him Mobility instead of Mounted Combat as his bonus feat. Seemed to be about the spirit of the feat.
|
I don't encourage munchkiny gaming as a general rule, but my two regular players are both very dedicated "power gamers", so I've had to come up with some tricked-out villians to give them a reasonable challenge. Spellcasting villians in particular tend not to survive more than a round or two in my campaigns, because the players are quick to target them and skilled at dispatching them.
So, I used a rather potent combination for a summoner in my last campaign: Slippers of Spider Climb + Improved Invisibility + Silent Spell metamagic feat + bunches of Summon Monster spells. The fight began at opposite ends of a large, roughly domed underground chamber, with the sorceress alerted to the PCs approach and ready to fight.
She cast her Improved Invisibility spell and immediately moved up the wall. Each round she would summon a monster right next to the PCs (or hit them with some other spell that didn't reveal her location), and move a little further along the ceiling, still invisible.
Eventually she ran out of summoning spells and started hitting the PCs with effects they could use to locate her, but the fight went several rounds before the players figured out what she was doing. All in all, it was quite a memorable battle and the players had a proud sense of accomplishment when they finally took her down.
Bull Strengthed, Enlarged, Raging human Barbarian (Bear Totem, UA) 5/Fighter 1 with Bear Fang style (CW) and armor spikes. If the battle axe and dagger both hit in the same round, he can make a free grapple attempt at +6+Normal Str Mod+5+12 (!), with automatic armor spike damage and a free additional dagger attack if he wins the grapple check.
After Barbarian 6/Fighter 1, he can then become a Bear Warrior with Extend Rage (CW) as his next feat...
For the DM's, Spellthief 6+/Ur-Priest 8+ Lich...
I'm preety sure the name of the thread is 'share your vombos!' and not 'complain about munchkinism' so PLZ stop hijacking the thread!! I'm just tring to look at the so-called "combos" and have to see posts of people blablablaing about munchkins...GEE
I find it really ironic that self-described 'roleplayers' call themselves purists. DnD was first a WARGAME, and some people got into the drama of it. Looking at the rules set, from any edition, makes it pretty clear that DnD was designed with combat in mind. Notice how there is a chapter in the PHB devoted specifically to combat, but there's no chapter entitled 'social encounters' or anything like that. You will find that most of the spells contained in the PHB are combat spells, etc.
Complaining about powergamers is kind of weird behavior, honestly, especially when you start making rules like 'all munchkin players cannot reduce a monsters hp below 1,' at which point you're really just playing favorites. What do you do when they kill them some other way, like con damage or a save or die spell? Do you change the rules again to not allow them to kill npcs? Oftentimes i see DMs making rules that they call 'anti-munchkin' when really they feel that it is more important that people who have studied the rules set not be given any advantage over those who you feel should have more powerful characters in-game. Oftentimes these 'solutions' break the integrity of the game world (like not allowing an npcs hit points to drop below 1) at which point you are sacrificing setting integrity and actual roleplaying to punish a specific player at the table.
If someone actually looks at the rules set, it is pathetically easy to break (Pun-Pun, for instance, is totally legal by the rules). After this is realized by some or all of the game group, it is impossible to have game balance until the players and DM agree to trust each other. When you start punishing the very players who have put time in to understanding the rules set, you are essentially punishing those who have more invested in DnD.
Now, on to the rules-lawyering: Even when held in one hand on a horse, lances gain one and a half times your stregnth bonus on damage and double power attack bonuses. This is because the Lance is a two-handed weapon (though only wielded in one hand at the moment) and still qualifies as per the Power Attack feat description and the combat chapter. So those of you who play caveliers et al may use a shield and lance and still gain the full benefit from it.
Rings of spell storing are nice, but keep in mind that there is no listed price for a metamagic rod of persistent spell, and the adjustment is spell level +6, so it would be prohibitively expensive, and the metamagic wands are not all priced proportional to their level adjustment. However, as unless modified with heighten spell a spell modified with a metamagic feat counts in all ways as a spell of its original level except for the spell slot it takes to cast/prepare, one could throw a persistent wraithstrike into a lesser ring of spell storing as it counts as a second level spell. Your melee character will greatly appreciate this, and anyway non-spellcasters need the buff under the current rules set.
Now, on to the rules-lawyering: Even when held in one hand on a horse, lances gain one and a half times your stregnth bonus on damage and double power attack bonuses. This is because the Lance is a two-handed weapon (though only wielded in one hand at the moment) and still qualifies as per the Power Attack feat description and the combat chapter. So those of you who play caveliers et al may use a shield and lance and still gain the full benefit from it.
Can't quite agree with that one. The lance, when wielded with one hand, cannot qualify as a Two-Handed weapon either for Strength mod or Power Attack. The reason is due to the definition of Two-Handed Weapons: "Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1½ times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon." [emphasis mine] So, when one wields a lance with one hand, it no longer qualifies as a two-handed weapon, by the very definition of such weapons.
There is already precedent for a weapon changing from one such category (Light, One-Handed, or Two-Handed) in the Size rules. If an ogre, for instance, wields a greatsword sized for a human in one hand, he doesn't get 1.5 x Str just because greatswords are listed in the Two-Handed category on the table. Likewise, a human can't Power Attack with a greatsword sized for a Tiny creature.
Look at the weapons table: a lance is a two-handed weapon with the special ability to be wielded in one hand while mounted. Nowhere does it state that you gain less strength or power attack damage with it while doing so; it is still a two-handed weapon. Note that one-handed weapons wielded in two hands are never become two-handed weapons, rather a specific rules exception is made for them.
Yes, I know that, but the greatsword is also listed under two-handed weapons (thus my use of it in examples above). By the logic being applied for lances, a greatsword would always classify for Power Attack, simply because it's in the Two-Handed section. That is (at least to me) obviously not correct by my reading of the rules. And the same would apply to the lance. You are, of course, free to use this in your games, but I do not think it is supported by core rules. It would also make weapons such as the bastard sword and dwarven war axe much more powerful (both of which are in the two-handed section, but can be wielded one-handed when the wielder has the correct feat).
Something I hate to do, as it can often simply lead to more confusion and even contradict itself, but the FAQ supports my position as well (D&D FAQ v.3.5 Update Version: 11/22/06):
You can get a host of benefits from wielding a twohanded
weapon, such as 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus
on damage (and twice your damage bonus from the Power
Attack feat) and a +4 bonus on your opposed attack roll if
someone tries to disarm you. So when is a weapon “twohanded?”
For example, a lance is a two-handed weapon,
right? But you can wield it in one hand when you’re
mounted. Since the weapons table shows that a lance is a
two-handed weapon, I get all the two-handed benefits no
matter how I wield the lance, right?
Wrong. Table 7–5 in the Player’s Handbook lists weapons
as light, one-handed, or two-handed strictly as a matter of
convenience. These size categories are always relative to the
wielder’s size, as explained in some detail in the section on
weapon size on page 113 in the Player’s Handbook (also see
next question).
When the combat rules speak of “two-handed” weapons,
they’re referring to how the weapon is being used. A Medium
character using a Medium longsword in two hands is using a
“two-handed” weapon. The same character using a Medium
lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed
weapon. Light weapons are an exception. If you wield a light
weapon in two hands you get no advantage on damage (see
page 113 in the Player’s Handbook). Likewise, you always
take a –4 penalty on your opposed roll when you’re wielding a
light weapon in a disarm attempt (when someone tries to
disarm you or you try to disarm someone) regardless of
whether you wield it one- or two-handed.
Wonderful. Andy Collins with more of that FAQrratta. While I surrender the point, as I suppose FAQ trumps RAW, I really would encourage DMs to lighten up on their fighter types on this point.
Look at the weapons table: a lance is a two-handed weapon with the special ability to be wielded in one hand while mounted. Nowhere does it state that you gain less strength or power attack damage with it while doing so; it is still a two-handed weapon. Note that one-handed weapons wielded in two hands are never become two-handed weapons, rather a specific rules exception is made for them.
I know the point has been conceded, but I feel compelled to weigh in with my two cents.
While it may not explicitly "state that you gain less strength or power attack damage with it while doing so," that's not the point. Two-handed weapons don't get 1.5xStr bonus on damage -- weapons wielded with two hands do.
On the specific case of a lance, from the perspective of realism, the wielder's strength has little to do with the damage done. Properly wielded, the bearer is just holding it still as the horse does all the work.
We had this discussion in our group, so I felt the urge to voice my opinion. I'll also point out that not all of our group is convinced -- I just benefit from being our DM :)
Regards,
Jack
|
|
Perhaps the strength damage should rely on the mount's strength, or factor in a damage modifier according to speed: 30'rd=+1, 40=+2, 50=+3 etc.
just a thought and probably not real usable.
thanks Fakey, it's enlightening !!
Next time that I have a mounted PC, I cast "bull's strength" on my horse, and I make him read a manual of gainful exercise...
Oh, I forgot that I have to buy two pairs of gloves of ogre power to put them on his horseshoes !!
D&D is such a great game...
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Next time that I have a mounted PC, I cast "bull's strength" on my horse, and I make him read a manual of gainful exercise...
Oh, I forgot that I have to buy two pairs of gloves of ogre power to put them on his horseshoes !!
Don't forget to cast Haste on it too! That extra 30 ft. of movement could HURT!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Back on-topic:
Surround an opponent with 4 (or more!) rogues who have the Opportunist ability and Combat Reflexes. Make sure one of them has Improved Trip (and maybe a couple of fighter levels). Watch the sneak attack add up!
R---R
--X--
R---RAll flanking. *shudder*
Why stop there! There is a feat from Complete Adventurer that gives +2 to hit and +2 to damage to any allies that hit a creature after you make a successful AoO. Does it stack? Hell if I know the answer under the RAW, but at my table it does (I think I posted a discussion about the feat on these boards at one time even).
Now, for the two-handed lance thing... what if a character had four arms, two on each side? Like a thri-kreen or a xorn, for example? Would using the two arms on the same side count as wielding it two-handed?I've actually seen rules for that somewhere, but don't recall where right off hand. May have been in relation to thri-kreen (and may have even been from the old Dark Sun material rather than 3.x). As I recall, a 2-handed weapon had two be wielded by arms from opposite sides (i.e. one right and one left or such). I'll dig around and see if I can find specifics...
Found it, and it was indeed an older resource, Thri-Kreen of Athas (a great book...it's 2E, but if you like the Kreen you can't go wrong with this baby!). Therein, it lays out thri-kreen fighting styles, including natural attacks, mixed weapon/claw/bite, grappling, and the aforementioned two-handed ("large" in 2E) weapons. For the 2-H, it basically states the kreen would wield the weapon with one hand from each side. Wielding a weapon with 2 hands from the same side imposed a -2 attack penalty as this limited the range of motion for the weapon. In no case did it allow the thri-kreen to wield two 2-H weapons (though they could wield, say, a shield and a chatchka).
So, there you have it. Not official for 3E, but makes sense to me. And now I'm itchin' to play Dark Sun again...
Opportunist is hilarious with multiple rogues. Especially when they are multiple power attack/wraithstrike assassin rogues.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Does it stack? Hell if I know the answer under the RAW, but at my table it does (I think I posted a discussion about the feat on these boards at one time even).
Well, the best way to check for stacking is to find out what kind of bonus it is defined as in the feat. It's probably a morale bonus, which I don't believe stack, but I might be wrong.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Does it stack? Hell if I know the answer under the RAW, but at my table it does (I think I posted a discussion about the feat on these boards at one time even).Well, the best way to check for stacking is to find out what kind of bonus it is defined as in the feat. It's probably a morale bonus, which I don't believe stack, but I might be wrong.
Trust me, I went around the stacking tree a couple times. :-) From memory, the bonus is a circumstance bonus. The definition of circumstance bonus says something like "they stack unless the derive from substantially the same cause." The question then becomes is it the same cause just because it is the same feat or does the fact that it is two different actors make it different enough that it is not the same cause. The ultimate conclusion I came to was that they cause was not substantially the same and so the two circumstance bonuses did stack, but I wouldn't begrudge somebody for reaching the opposite conclusion.