I got this funny image of some guy trying to dual wield lances and running his mount into things head first."You're charging this guy with TWO lances?"
"Yeah, one handed weapon while mounted, I've got two weapon fighting."
"Ok, I need a Ride check DC 15 and a Strength check DC 15."
"A 16 and a 12. Why the strength check?"
"It's no problem keeping one lance aligned properly, but two takes more effort, needing the check. Since you failed, one of the lance hits the ground tip first, give me a ride check DC 20."
"Crud, 18!"
"As you charge your target, one of the lances dips too low and digs into a tree stump. As your mount continues, you effectively pole vault and land on your target. Roll 3d6 damage."
"13"
"You each take 13 points of damage. The ogre makes it's strength check with ease, remaining standing. Nice try at knocking it over. You are now looking an ogre in the knees as you sit up, while your warhorse continues on. Oh, and you are still holding one lance."
Lol, this is funny and sounds like something that would happen in games I have both ran and played in
Lol, funny post QOShea, but I have to ask. Why punish somebody who spent the resources to take both Two Weapon Fighting AND Two Weapon pounce (or got access to real pounce)?
In one game, I played a dragonrider who led in from Paladin, and I would charge in (using the two-weapon pounce feat and Tremendous charge) blow a smite on each swing, and smack the target for usually lethal damage. It was an AWESOME visual!
If someone tried charging with two lances, I would require a strength check to keep them level AND require him to have Two-Weapon Fighting. With one lance it's not a problem because you are focused on one weapon. These are much more unwieldy than most one handed weapons, hence the strength check required.
If not for knowing basically how to handle two weapons, not a chance at allowing it.
I got this funny image of some guy trying to dual wield lances and running his mount into things head first.
I was under the assumption that you lanced something while passing it on one side, sort of like a mid evil version of a drive buy (now theres a funny image: a knight lancing someone then making an E with a gauntled hand and saying "Eastside!")
I would allow a two lance attack against two targets on either side of the rider maybe, but otherwise it seems like it would lead to a very comical situation.
East-siiiide,
malkav
Um... hate to tell you this Malkov, but the mechanics say your wrong.
I agree with you from a historical perspective, but a charging mount stops, dead stops, just infront of the target, as the charge has to go directly to the target.
There is no 'drive by' except in the case of ride-by-attacks.
Ride-By Attack (Combat)
While mounted and charging, you can move, strike at a foe, and then continue moving.Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat.
Benefit: When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). Your total movement for the round can't exceed double your mounted speed. You and your mount do not provoke an attack of opportunity from the opponent that you attack.
Which you can see is done as part of a charge. :)
If someone tried charging with two lances, I would require a strength check to keep them level AND require him to have Two-Weapon Fighting. If not for knowing basically how to handle two weapons, not a chance at allowing it.
Look for parallels: "If a caster wants to tumble AND cast a spell, I'd force him to roll an Acrobatics check with a penalty of twice the spell level AND require him to roll a Concentration check to cast while moving. If he doesn't have Combat Casting for knowing basically how to handle casting while moving, not a chance at allowing it."
If someone tried charging with two lances, I would require a strength check to keep them level AND require him to have Two-Weapon Fighting. If not for knowing basically how to handle two weapons, not a chance at allowing it.Look for parallels: "If a caster wants to tumble AND cast a spell, I'd force him to roll an Acrobatics check with a penalty of twice the spell level AND require him to roll a Concentration check to cast while moving. If he doesn't have Combat Casting for knowing basically how to handle casting while moving, not a chance at allowing it."
But is he holding 1 lance or 2 :)
But is he holding 1 lance or 2 :)
He's holding sulfur AND bat guano. And a crossbow. (And probably a staff as well, hoping no one notices that he's got 3 hands accounted for and still claims to be tumbling.)
But is he holding 1 lance or 2 :)He's holding sulfur AND bat guano. And a crossbow. (And probably a staff as well, hoping no one notices that he's got 3 hands accounted for and still claims to be tumbling.)
Well the way I do it, if he casts the spell first there is no issue, but yeah I agree I would not let what your talking about slide. But that has little to do with duel lances
Well the way I do it, if he casts the spell first there is no issue, but yeah I agree I would not let what your talking about slide. But that has little to do with duel lances
"Dual," not "duel," and it has everything to do with them. D&D is not realistic. If you force the warriors to be realistic anyway, but give the casters a free pass, then it stops even being much of a game.
Well the way I do it, if he casts the spell first there is no issue, but yeah I agree I would not let what your talking about slide. But that has little to do with duel lances"Dual," not "duel," and it has everything to do with them. D&D is not realistic. If you force the warriors to be realistic anyway, but give the casters a free pass, then it stops even being much of a game.
eh I would stop both, silly is silly. And again it has nothing to do with spell casters. You can start a thread over it if you like, but unless he is holding a lance while mounted and casting, it really has little to do with two lances
Well the way I do it, if he casts the spell first there is no issue, but yeah I agree I would not let what your talking about slide. But that has little to do with duel lances
So if two bards are charging each other with stringed instruments, is it dueling banjos?
Well the way I do it, if he casts the spell first there is no issue, but yeah I agree I would not let what your talking about slide. But that has little to do with duel lancesSo if two bards are charging each other with stringed instruments, is it dueling banjos?
Definitely. Though banjos have range, too, you know: perfect pitch is 50'.
And Kirth - +30
Seeker - it has everything to do with the question at hand. If you nerf the meleers because of the demands of realism, you need to keep the casters in hand, too. That's what I've been banging on about for the past x pages...
Seeker - it has everything to do with the question at hand. If you nerf the meleers because of the demands of realism, you need to keep the casters in hand, too. That's what I've been banging on about for the past x pages...
Ok so are "wizard" is on a mount with a lance? Well of coarse he can not charge and cast. If he does not have a mount or a lance I am not sure why he is in a thread about mounts and lances
What you allow a wizard to get away with is on you. This thread is about lances, and mounts. And using the lance while mounted.
And while I find it silly a wizard can backflip while casting (I would say no to them as well btw) it has little if nothing to do with the matter at hand
If someone tried charging with two lances, I would require a strength check to keep them level AND require him to have Two-Weapon Fighting. If not for knowing basically how to handle two weapons, not a chance at allowing it.Look for parallels: "If a caster wants to tumble AND cast a spell, I'd force him to roll an Acrobatics check with a penalty of twice the spell level AND require him to roll a Concentration check to cast while moving. If he doesn't have Combat Casting for knowing basically how to handle casting while moving, not a chance at allowing it."
I'd penalize both classes, personally. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far.
Just because the rules allow it doesn't mean it's not silly.My point, Dork Lord, was that it's no more silly than the standard mounted charge. The mount's momentum slams to 0 the instant you reach the point of attack unless your using the Ride-By-Attack feat.
It's just that simple (and silly to some)
I understand your point as well, Kyrt. My point is that (and not just in this case), the rules often allow characters to do really ridiculous things that while technically allowed delves into the realms of cheese in my opinion. "Because the rules say I can" is not a good enough reason in any game I'm running.
Seeker - it has everything to do with the question at hand. If you nerf the meleers because of the demands of realism, you need to keep the casters in hand, too. That's what I've been banging on about for the past x pages...
Ok so are "wizard" is on a mount with a lance? Well of coarse he can not charge and cast. If he does not have a mount or a lance I am not sure why he is in a thread about mounts and lances
What you allow a wizard to get away with is on you. This thread is about lances, and mounts. And using the lance while mounted.
And while I find it silly a wizard can backflip while casting (I would say no to them as well btw) it has little if nothing to do with the matter at hand
If you are running a game with *nothing but mounted lancer PCs* then it has nothing to do with your game.
If you run games for spellcaster PCs, then it has *everything* to do with it. Nerf one class (the weaker class) and leave the other (the uber class) untouched, and you damage the balance of your game.
Not that I'm saying I would allow a two-weapon-fighting lancer, mind you. Blimey.
eh what you allow is up to you. But the caster and what he gets away with has nothing to do with this. If you want to ask "Should I allow my wizard to do a triple flip while casting fireball" thats not the same thread as this
You take each call in turn. If the wizard player wants to do something supper silly like that well tell him no as well.
But telling someone yes or no has zero to do with if you told someone else to do something else entirely.
Player "Well you let bob do x. "
GM " well x sounded doable"
Player " But mine is legal by Raw! bob was not even covered!"
GM "To be blunt yours was silly, if legal and bobs while not covered made sense. So it's still a no"
Come on now. There's a huge difference between casting spells and doing things the rules may allow but weren't designed in mind for, like charging with two lances. Saying "but magic and dragons aren't realistic either" is not a valid point in this case. I'm not even talking about realism. I'm talking about players twisting the rules for maximum cheese-filled benefit. Again, just because the rules allow it doesn't mean the DM should allow it. Charging with two lances is ridiculously silly in my opinion and if a DM allows it because "the rules don't say you can't", I don't believe he or she is doing a good job as a DM.
You're certainly welcome to that opinion.
Hrrm...
"bs rulings" is maybe a wee bit strong tea, Kyrt. I feel for ya, though.
Seeker: you're a nice, patient person to discuss things with, but I do think you're missing the point here.
PF is a semi-simulationist game, but it's still a game, and requires a level playing field for PCs to work together on - otherwise players get antsy. In that respect, as DM, you're no different from an umpire in a game of tennis. You have other roles, too, but Umpire is one of them.
Now, what you're suggesting is that you can change one rule in isolation without it affecting anything else. Wizard spellcasting is irrelevant to discussion of the mounted lancer. More or less, right?
Let's say you're a tennis umpire. The modern (men's) game is dominated by the big serve - but you've got this old-fashioned, old-skool player on the court, one with a rubbish serve, but an amazing old-time backspin backhand. No one knows how he gets that spin, but he does it.
Now, somehow this guy has made it into the big game, and you're umpiring him against Goran Blastovitch, the biggest server in the game.
By the book, this guy's backhand is fine - but you don't like the look of it. It's cheesy. It's not how you imagine tennis should be. So you rein the guy in. You tell him he can't put backspin on his backhand. You tell him it's Unsportmanlike Conduct.
Are you within your rights? Actually, you're the umpire, so by the book you are a demigod on that tennis court for the duration of the match. If you say backspin is Unsportsmanlike, that's it (until the match is over).
Are you being a good Umpire? No. For one thing, you're overruling the rules, and that puts you on thin ice...but you're also being unfair in another way. You're considering the backspin in isolation. You're not considering it in the light of the uber-weapon at the other end of the court, Goran Blastovitch's serve. You're calling the weaker player out as unsportsmanlike, and this is all the poorer a bit of umpiring because your decision doesn't take into account what else is going on in the game.
See?
|
If someone has TWF, and Two-Weapon Pounce, and wants to ride in with a pair of lances. Why should I penalize my player for being Awesome?
Pathfinder is a game, and part of the excitement of a game is those completely off the wall moments where players truly surprise you.
Don't punish players for being awesome.
Punish the players who hide in another room while the rest of the party risks life and limb.
Don't punish the wizard who flips out and kills people. He's just chanelling his inner ninja.
stuff
No offense man, but I have no clue what your talking about. You lost me.
The lance thing is one rule that does not touch or have anything to do with spellcasting.
I do not care if a fighter tries it, a wizard, a cleric a monk or joe the farmer. The question has nothing to do with spellcasting
Now if a spell caster, any spell caster wanted to pull off the backflipping spell. Then I would say no. It would not matter to me what kind of caster
The point is what a caster, ranger, cleric or another fighter can or can not do has no bearing on if someone allows something. Backflipping spellcasting has nothing to do with lances or mounts so has no baring on anything you allow or disallow about lances or mounts
stuffI have no clue what your talking about. You lost me.
The lance thing is one rule that does not touch or have anything to do with spellcasting.
I do not care if a fighter tries it, a wizard, a cleric a monk or joe the farmer. The question has nothing to do with spellcasting
Now if a spell caster, any spell caster wanted to pull off the backflipping spell. Then I would say no. It would not matter to me what kind of caster
The point is what a caster, ranger, cleric or another fighter can or can not do has no bearing on if someone allows something. Backflipping spellcasting has nothing to do with lances or mounts so has no baring on anything you allow or disallow about lances or mounts
lol
Oh well, I tried. Apologies if I was unclear.
Long story short: our mounted lancer doesn't exist in a game vacuum. If you bend the rules against him, that does affect the relative power level of other classes and builds. That is why your ruling on mounting lancing affects the Wizard, and indeed the other top-tier classes - said tiers being composed entirely (IIRC) of spellcasters.
Is that any clearer? Hope so.
Apologies if I was unclear.
On the contrary, you were abundantly clear. The only way to "have no clue" what you were talking about would be to take your clue, club it over the head with a tire iron, wire a cinder block to its leg, and drop it in the ocean.
Long story short: our mounted lancer doesn't exist in a game vacuum. If you bend the rules against him, that does affect the relative power level of other classes and builds. That is why your ruling on mounting lancing affects the Wizard, and indeed the other top-tier classes - said tiers being composed entirely (IIRC) of spellcasters.
Is that any clearer? Hope so.
Ok so, thats like telling a wizard "sorry you can't use fly as the fighter can not fly" What one class can or can not do has nothing to do with what another can or can not do.
We are not even talking about a class. Anyone with the feats can try the lance thing, be it a fighter or a wizard. It has nothing to do with casting.
What I am saying at man, a ruling only effects that action. Telling one person "No" has zero baring on what anyone else does or does not do
The only way it would not be fair is if you tell "Bob" no then turn around and tell "Frank" sure you can do that
On the contrary, you were abundantly clear.
Nope he was not clear, he lost me with tennis. I really had no clue about anything he meant with tennis and it just got more confusing as he went on
But then I am still trying to fig out what spell casting has to do with using two lances. Unless the spell caster is using the two lances .
Apologies if I was unclear.On the contrary, you were abundantly clear. The only way to "have no clue" what you were talking about would be to take your clue, club it over the head with a tire iron, wire a cinder block to its leg, and drop it in the ocean.
Kirth - Thank you. I thought so.
Seeker - there's a point here, but you're still missing it. It's a biggie, but hey, it's a game, so it isn't really. Now it's snowing and I've got a fire to build (mmm), so fun as this is, I'll bow out. See you on the horizon.
P.S. I know absolutely nothing at all about tennis. Had never heard of this guy Blastermeister or whatever. And still had no problem following the illustration.
P.S. I know absolutely nothing at all about tennis. Had never heard of this guy Blastermeister or whatever. And still had no problem following the illustration.
eh, good for you. I had no clue. I knew there was a point in there somewhere, but I never saw it.
It maybe because I am not fallowing at all the thing about spell casters having an effect on a ruling that has nothing to do with spellcasting.
eh, to each his own
It maybe because I am not fallowing at all the thing about spell casters having an effect on a ruling that has nothing to do with spellcasting.
I think it has to do with "choosing not to follow," rather than "not f[o]llowing," but OK.
Just trust us, then -- actively looking for ways to screw one very limited class, and not trying to screw others that have more capabilities to begin with, is even less "fair and balanced" than Fox News at its worst.
EDIT: Would I allow two lances? Actually, no. But that's because I've already addressed the system as a whole, and given lancers enough capabilities so that they don't have to resort to silly things like double lancing. If you haven't boosted the horsemen, or nerfed the hell out of the casters, you've encouraged a situation in which a player is almost forced to perform silly antics like that, just to feel like he's getting a minute in the spotlight for once.
eh, it has nothing to do with the casting. Nada. What you allow or disallow with a lance has nothing to do with casting spells(unless your casting spells using a lance)
Geez, at this point I'm sorry I posted the damn comment.
heh, welcome to message boards :)
If you want to see why lances rock, Pathfinder is SO the wrong system for it.
A lance does a charging attack putting the kinetic energy of about a ton of horse moving at 35 mph into a reasonably blunt spearhead.
Let's run some numbers.
Your average clydesdale is about 1800 lbs. Your average rider in armor is another 250 or so. We'll add another 150 lbs for the armor on the horse.
Call it 2200 pounds, or 1 metric ton (1,000 kg)
In Pathfinder, the horse moves about 40 feet per 6 seconds. 4 meters is 13 feet, so we'll call that 17 meters per 6 seconds, or, on a double move, about 35 meters per 6 seconds.
For the sake of simplicity, we'll call that 6 meters per second.
KE = 0.5 * M * V^2
KE = 0.5 * 1,000 kg * 36
KE = 500 * 36
KE = 1800 kJ
By way of comparison, we'll take a meter long broadsword doing a full return move, and assume that it's covering about 4 meters per second after factoring in moment of inertia (this is actually a VERY powerful sword blow when all is said and done). We'll call it 2 kilos.
KE = 0.5 * M * V^2
KE = 0.5 * 2 * 16
KE = 0.5 * 32
KE = 16 kJ.
There are other factors here beyond Kinetic Energy, but a lance should realistically be doing about 80 to 100x the damage to the target that a sword swing does.
Of course, in Pathfinder, by the time the rider manages to get enough feats to do mounted combat effectively, he's probably got more hit points than the horse does, so increasing the lance's damage doesn't really solve the entire problem of the knight on horseback charging the dragon and ending up skidding on his ass 20' short as his horse is turned into a charcoal smear underneath him. :)
eh, it has nothing to do with the casting. Nada. What you allow or disallow with a lance has nothing to do with casting spells(unless your casting spells using a lance)
If I give the cleric d12 HD, full BAB, heavy armor, a +20 sacred bonus to AC, and a +50 damage bonus with a mace, that has nothing to do with the longsword-wielding, shield-toting fighter, either, because the cleric has no longsword and isn't carrying a shield? What I allow or disallow the cleric has nothing to do with the fighter. Nada.
That probably doesn't clear it up any, but unfortunately it's the best I can do right now.
If you want to see why lances rock, Pathfinder is SO the wrong system for it.
If you want any kinda of realistic combat, any system based off D&D is not good for it. Hp, daggers doing just 1d4, a 5 pound longsword, 10 pound two hander...the list is endless.
Of course, in Pathfinder, by the time the rider manages to get enough feats to do mounted combat effectively, he's probably got more hit points than the horse does, so increasing the lance's damage doesn't really solve the entire problem of the knight on horseback charging the dragon and ending up skidding on his ass 20' short as his horse is turned into a charcoal smear underneath him. :)
We had that happen in a fight. The 'knight' got his horse blown up from under him while he made his saving throw vs the lightning breath weapon.
Thank goodness for saddles is all I can say!
If I give the cleric d12 HD, full BAB, heavy armor, a +50 sacred bonus to AC, and a +50 damage bonus with a mace, that has nothing to do with the longsword-wielding, shield-toting fighter, either, right? Because the cleric has no longsword and isn't carrying a shield.
You wizard hate is coming out now, your just being silly. One ruling that effects anyone and everyone mounted with a lance the same way has nothing to do with spellcasting.
If I give the cleric d12 HD, full BAB, heavy armor, a +50 sacred bonus to AC, and a +50 damage bonus with a mace, that has nothing to do with the longsword-wielding, shield-toting fighter, either, right? Because the cleric has no longsword and isn't carrying a shield.You wizard hate is coming out now, your just being silly. One ruling that effects anyone and everyone mounted with a lance the same way has nothing to do with spellcasting.
It does if the reason you are claiming for employing the nerf bat is due to "realism". If you are just using the nerf bat for one group of individuals but not doing it for others than that can show that youa re hypocritical in your application.
It does if the reason you are claiming for employing the nerf bat is due to "realism". If you are just using the nerf bat for one group of individuals but not doing it for others than that can show that youa re hypocritical in your application.If I give the cleric d12 HD, full BAB, heavy armor, a +50 sacred bonus to AC, and a +50 damage bonus with a mace, that has nothing to do with the longsword-wielding, shield-toting fighter, either, right? Because the cleric has no longsword and isn't carrying a shield.You wizard hate is coming out now, your just being silly. One ruling that effects anyone and everyone mounted with a lance the same way has nothing to do with spellcasting.
No, I already said no to the backflipping wizard. Its a case by case thing. If anyone, regardless of class they play wants to do something I find silly I'll say no. But the spellcaster can fly! or what have you has nothing to do with "can I use two lances at once"
Now I'll agree I find wizards doing flips and such is silly as hell while casting, same with rolling across the room like a ninja then casting firball. I would tell them no as well but that would have nothing to do with anyone else.
You can not use "but he can do x" as a reason to allow something you find game mood breaking. The wizard casts spells, so thats his thing, He is gonna be able to do stuff non casters just can not do. That is the point of spells
And what's with the tumbling wizard hate? It's not like the wizard casts the spell while he/she is tumbling. She tumbles 15', then she casts. What about that necessitates a penalty? You're going to penalize a player for taking a different tack with character design? Isn't the reason a character puts skill points into Acrobatics so he or she can do that sort of thing?
ok seeker lets say the first time he tries the two lance charge everything goes the way you said and he falls off his horse and everything and he survives the fight and in the nest fight makes the same checks and passes and continues and isn't killed.
would it be fair to assume that he might become practiced at it and not need to roll 2 checks and an attack for his charge.
Oh and on the question on whether a wizard can cast his spell in the middle of a tumble, first check for tumble, 2nd check for spellcraft.
if he fails the first he doesn't tumble
if he fails the 2nd he doesn't cast while tumbling but after he finishes
but that is my 2 cents
No, I already said no to the backflipping wizard. Its a case by case thing. If anyone, regardless of class they play wants to do something I find silly I'll say no.
Ah, I see. You reserve the right to tell people that they can't do things allowed by the rules, because you don't like them. That's actually OK; I do it, too! But the thing is, I email them houserules in advance, I don't spring it on them in the middle of play. And if they don't like a proposed change to the rules, they can email me or post and we discuss it -- see the Houston gamer's connection thread for some examples. Because personally, I feel that suspending the rules to a player's detriment, without any prior notice, is a pretty stong abuse of my DM authority. How are they supposed to know in advance what I find silly or unrealistic, unless I tell them? They're game players, not mind readers.
Edit: I'm not saying you're doing it wrong -- what works for you players is fine for that group; I'm just saying that my players would find a new DM -- but not before I stepped down voluntarily.