It's my job as a DM to nip things I'm disallowing in the bud before game starts. If a player comes to me before the campaign starts and has this "killer" concept of a two lance charge and I don't approve of the idea, I'm going to tell him before we start play. I make it a point to talk to my players about what they have planned before game starts so I don't have to say no in the middle of game.
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
I think the really big point here is...
How often is your dual-lancer actually going to charge with dual lances?
Think of how often a mage can cast. Every round right? No matter the situation. A mage can deal super damage. Underground, flying, wherever. This is DUNGEONS and dragons after all.
How often does a lancer get to charge? How often is a lancer going to have the situation to charge with dual lances? Probably not very often.
The thing is, by stopping this, you've ruled against a very rare occurance. A charging person weilding two lances at a target.
It's not so much that "it's silly." It's that why say no? Just because you can? Because you don't like it? You have to be very careful when you start arbitrarily saying yes or no to things. It promotes a very negative environment. There is nothing game-breaking about a dual lance charge. It's a 1 in 100 shot.
I got two-weapon fighting with my rogue for a dual sneak attack flanking (quad when I get two attacks which is OH so close.) I do INSANE damage when I do this. I killed a wyvern in one volley with this at lvl 5 (pretty sure it was 5.) Is it cheesy? Probably. Why get two sneak attacks in the same round? The rules don't say you can't, but it's a bit weird to "sneak" on someone twice. The DM could have ruled "One sneak attack a round! Because it isn't realistic!" We've had numerous combats since I've gotten this idea and usage. I think i've had a total of 5-10 opportunities to do this (through to level 8). In those opportunities, I've hit on both attacks twice.
Hopefully you get my point, which is even if you did allow this, this is going to affect maybe 1 out of every 10 sessions. And he's going to miss on one of the attacks half the time.
What does dual sneak attack have to do with dual lances? A whole lot! All the game rules are made so that they can co-exist together in harmony. If you suddenly say, "Dagger's should do more damage! It's not realistic that they only do 1d4" and move them to say 1d6 or 1d8. You have now affected every class (they all can use daggers) every feat (why take any other weapon proficiency? two-weapon fighting is changed drastically).
Tumbling while casting doesn't quite cover it either. It's a bad example. I tried with the dual sneak attack, it's a bit closer though a bit more spelled out in the rules that you CAN dual sneak attack (you get sneak attack as long as the conditions for sneak attack apply to every attack) but dual lances is LESS powerful than dual sneak attack. And they happen about as frequently. (until greater invisibility i guess.)
Eh, either way it is your game and you can do what you want, but there is nothing that's going to break your game here. I'm going to start DMing soon and if my player decides to do this, I will cheer him on as he does his 1d8 damage.
And I will give him 1.5 strength damage for free, because he's using all of his body for the strike, not just his arm. And allow him to keep his sheild bonus.
It's my job as a DM to nip things I'm disallowing in the bud before game starts. If a player comes to me before the campaign starts and has this "killer" concept of a two lance charge and I don't approve of the idea, I'm going to tell him before we start play. I make it a point to talk to my players about what they have planned before game starts so I don't have to say no in the middle of game.
Why say no at all? It really isn't a big deal for this kind of thing. It's much better to let they have everything they want, and then have them deal with the consequences.
Let me ask you this... what's the minimum level required for a character to pull this two lance charge (imo) nonsense?
Let me ask you this... what's the minimum level required for a character to pull this two lance charge (imo) nonsense?
In my opinion, as soon as he has two-weapon fighting he can try it. I would still require a str check though. Or if he wants to create a custom feat, Dual Lance, just to be cool, I might allow it.
Not sure I would allow Quick Draw for a lance though, thought I could be convinced.
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
Except the problem there is you are picking the methods of one class to focus on and not the others. You demand realism from fighters by don't from wizards, because the methods used by fighters are more "mundane" in origin. In the end, that will just end up screwing over fighters, fighters can't have nice things. Why not let fighters in fantasy games be allowed to accomplish fantastical things? No, probably in real life a guy couldn't use two lances while riding, so what? Firing two arrows at the same time is also insane in real life, going to toss out manyshot? The world record on the long jump is around 30 ft, going to allow your fighter to jump more? Instead of getting all high and mighty as a DM and saying, "This isn't believable", give in to the spirit of the game and say, "That is fantastical, sounds great for a fantasy game."
I would still require a str check though.
Do you make wizards roll to aim their fireballs too? Its pretty silly that a wizard can toss a fireball with pinpoint accuracy 500 feet away too, right?
How about wizards making int checks to see if they remember the words to their spells? Or maybe a dex check for the somatic component?Putting extra checks on something the rules dont have a check for is pretty silly.
I would still require a str check though.
Do you make wizards roll to aim their fireballs too? Its pretty silly that a wizard can toss a fireball with pinpoint accuracy 500 feet away too, right?
How about wizards making int checks to see if they remember the words to their spells? Or maybe a dex check for the somatic component?Putting extra checks on something the rules dont have a check for is pretty silly.
Are you trying to be obtuse about it?
He is trying to wield two lances at once.
If a wizard tried to cast two spells at once, I'd require a concentration check (and a pretty high one). I don't mean a quickened spell and a regular spell, I mean two unaltered spells.
Aiming is part of a spell, it's a practiced activity.
Wielding two lances on a galloping horse is NOT a practiced activity.
For another lance question, since I don't remember seeing this anywhere.
Do lances break when used? I've seen DM's who says yes and some who say no.
Considering there is a feat that makes them require a roll to not break, in 3.5, I would say under normal use no, but is there anything in Pathfinder one way or the other?
I don't think Lances in D&D are jousting style lances, so I'd say no they wouldn't break unless they dealt a severe amount of damage.
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.
Oh I agree, I would never let a player who intended to do that no, after I knowingly allowed him to build it as such. That is abuse, you should always talk such things over with players. If it was something they wanted to try on the fly I would have to rule right then. However if they aimed toward it it would be brought up well before they ever did it in game. We would then talk back and forth and if they can sway me I allow it. If not I disallow it.
Talking and discussing issues like this with your players is a must. You should never allow your players to waste time and resources on feats and gear you know you will not allow them to use. Sometimes you don't houserule something to it comes up in play. Even if I decide feats and gear a player has is disruptive, I allow a rebuild and gear of the same value reconnected in. I have never had this happen but I am clear With players I will do so if need be. But I would never just strip something away from a player
For another lance question, since I don't remember seeing this anywhere.
Do lances break when used? I've seen DM's who says yes and some who say no.
Considering there is a feat that makes them require a roll to not break, in 3.5, I would say under normal use no, but is there anything in Pathfinder one way or the other?
I would say no, as it does not say it. I have come to the conclusion after much though on this thread that the core lance is a light lance. More or less a longspear and is indeed usable two-handed. The core lance is just not the heavy "knight" lance most people(myself included) picture in our heads
The local mores deem it broken for a high-level character to do 100+ damage in a turn, and have no problem with high-level monsters having hundreds of HP. Then people complain about how PF stops working after level 12.
How are you getting hundreds of points of damage? With the changes to Power Attack, the absolute maximum you can get is 18pts. It's a lot harder to make an uber-charger in PF than it was in 3.5.
|
There's no rule stating you can't use a lance one-handed in your off-hand either (infact, I actually had one of my players do that once, after they're arm had needed to be amputated because of how badly it was infected and the cleric was dead) So it's entirely legitimate to use a lance in either hand. Two weapon fighting allows a warrior to wield a weapon heavier than light in each hand (as long as he can hold it in one hand) at a -4 pentalty (-2 with Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting).Where is this massive disconnect you see...
Just my two cents worth ...
If the real knights and soldiers who used the weapon IRL, and whose life depended on it never did it, there is probably a very good reason, just saying ....
For instance, could it be that when your horse is CHARGING ... meaning a fast, rough, uneven movement (nothing comfy like being in a car or jeep or tank), into enemy ranks, trying to pinpoint a target while avoiding getting hit, only to when you hit suffer a pretty major impact yourself in the arm and shoulder when your lance connects, you may want to have a free, or semi-free hand (true, it could be either hand) to help just staying in the saddle, rather than falling from your horse, being unable to rise up due to the weight of your armor, and being trampled by the horse of your adversary, while his serfs are disarming you and trying to slit your throat ....
I see it coming that some of you are going to tell me that none of this is in the rules, and that's true. That's up to your play style, and if you enjoy it, go for it, but I find that my games have tremendously improved in fun and lack of time wasted in rules discussion aver I since I made it clear to my group that I would not accept that kind of things.
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.
Personally I'm just checking back in to see what the latest news is on the firball. It sounds so seasonal, I think I'd have to allow it. Bet it's cheesy though.
If a wizard tried to cast two spells at once, I'd require a concentration check (and a pretty high one). I don't mean a quickened spell and a regular spell, I mean two unaltered spells.
If you allowed that attempt at all, I'd cast a "quickened leave game" as an immediate action.
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 don't see how tumbling while spell casting would be any more difficult than tumbling while wielding a sword and shield with a long bow and back pack across his back wearing chain armor then making an attack. A caster would need to make a concentration roll if he is casting in melee but otherwise he would be fine.
I don't see how tumbling while spell casting would be any more difficult than tumbling while wielding a sword and shield then making an attack. A caster would need to make a concentration roll if he is casting in melee but otherwise he would be fine.
Remember, the caster has to reach into his pouch, find the bat guano, then rummage around until he locates the sulfur, then intone the mystical incantation without missing a beat, and perform the complex spellcasting gestures -- and he can do this while cartwheeling across the room. And that's "realistic" and no more difficult than swinging a sword -- so after a simple check, "he's fine." That single spell blows up an entire roomful of people -- say two people save, and are charred, but alive, so I want my 6th level fighter to run 20 feet up to them and attack them (two swings of the sword, one at a -5 penalty). But I'm not allowed to even attempt that, because it's not "realistic" enough. What now? I know! Maybe I can charge in on my trusty horse with two lances, one for each of them? Nope. Too "silly."
Double standard. And it's so pervasive that it never even occurs to people that they're doing it. Every time a warrior comes up with a weapon exploit, it gets banned as "silly" without a second thought, but no one thinks to make spellcasting more difficult?
I have no problem with you using two lances. What is silly is using two lances on a charge.
According to the charge rules you can only make a single attack. Now if you have a feat that allows you to attack with a weapon in each hand at the end of a charge then the double lance move is fine.
Are you trying to be obtuse about it?
He is trying to wield two lances at once.
If a wizard tried to cast two spells at once, I'd require a concentration check (and a pretty high one). I don't mean a quickened spell and a regular spell, I mean two unaltered spells.
Aiming is part of a spell, it's a practiced activity.
Wielding two lances on a galloping horse is NOT a practiced activity.
I am pointing out how flawed your logic is. If one person can do something completely against the realm of logic without a check, why would you force a check on someone else when the rules dont require a check for either? One character spent character resources to be able to do the task in form of feats. Feats which give you super human abilities, I might add. The other you let do completely impossible things just by virtue of taking a specific class?
If a wizard had a feat that let them cast two spells at once, and it did not require any sort of check there would be no reason to require a check...
and frankly wielding two lances at once is more practical than anyone trying to use any of the double weapons... or do you make people take checks to use those too?
I see it coming that some of you are going to tell me that none of this is in the rules, and that's true. That's up to your play style, and if you enjoy it, go for it, but I find that my games have tremendously improved in fun and lack of time wasted in rules discussion aver I since I made it clear to my group that I would not accept that kind of things.
So you arent even really playing D&D then? Since real soldiers didnt have magic.. so I guess you would have to remove magic from the game... real soldiers didnt have feats, so I guess you should take those out too... real soldiers battled in large formations too.. so I guess you needed to scrap the D&D skirmish style combat and switch to a formation based combat system..
So pretty much to make it anything like real soldiers did, you are not playing a game even close to the one the rest of us are playing.
|
|
I see it coming that some of you are going to tell me that none of this is in the rules, and that's true. That's up to your play style, and if you enjoy it, go for it, but I find that my games have tremendously improved in fun and lack of time wasted in rules discussion aver I since I made it clear to my group that I would not accept that kind of things.
So you arent even really playing D&D then? Since real soldiers didnt have magic.. so I guess you would have to remove magic from the game... real soldiers didnt have feats, so I guess you should take those out too... real soldiers battled in large formations too.. so I guess you needed to scrap the D&D skirmish style combat and switch to a formation based combat system..
So pretty much to make it anything like real soldiers did, you are not playing a game even close to the one the rest of us are playing.
You are assuming WAY too much with this assertion.
I love the arguments of "well magic isn't realistic so it's ok to throw physics out the window with everything else"... in my opinion, care should be taken to avoid absurdity in a PF or D&D game, even if the rules say such absurdity will work. When in doubt, imagine someone doing the feat in question in real life, and if it seems unrealistic and/or just silly then odds are the action shouldn't be allowed.
I love the arguments of "well magic isn't realistic so it's ok to throw physics out the window with everything else"... in my opinion, care should be taken to avoid absurdity in a PF or D&D game, even if the rules say such absurdity will work. When in doubt, imagine someone doing the feat in question in real life, and if it seems unrealistic and/or just silly then odds are the action shouldn't be allowed.
So no Manyshot? So no jumping more than 30 ft?
Yup, fighters are not allowed to have nice things.
Manyshot has always been worthless anyway, so what's the point?
Fighters? I make -all- classes follow the basic laws of physics in my game. I'm not biased against Fighters.
Manyshot has always been worthless anyway, so what's the point?
Fighters? I make -all- classes follow the basic laws of physics in my game. I'm not biased against Fighters.
Except fighters are one of the very few whose main functions are viewed as "mundane" and thus they are unevenly held to a higher standard than those with "magical" functions. Thus you are in fact biased against fighters when you put too much weight on using basic laws fo physics in a fantasy roleplaying game.
Excuse me. I read up on it and it appears they changed Manyshot for the better as well for Pathfinder.
*Shrugs* I don't know what else to say except that I made it very clear that what I said was opinion. I don't agree with you, but that's ok.
I wouldn't allow a Wizard to do a backflip and cast a spell in the same round without a hefty Concentration check, so to me it evens out.
Ummm...why is this still even a conversation? I think Seeker put it very succinctly when he contradicted his entire thesis with this statement:
"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."
At this point he is VERY VERY right. He's saying that D&D and PF in general are not good simulationist systems. And he's right, because they are fantasy systems. What this correct statement does is unravel every point he (and his allies) have tried to make in this thread.
You're right about dual-wielding lances not being realistic.
You're right about two-handing a lance being a little odd.
You're right about D&D not being correctly simulationist.
There's the end of the conversation, because you argued yourself into incorrectness.
The rules are the rules, and if someone were to say the following item: "It's unrealistic that you get dual-wielding lances" when the rules do not say you can't and actually provide abilities for you to do so, then you might as well say "Turning into someone into stone is unrealistic" even though the spell is in the game."
This is silly at this point.
There's also the fact that a DM has a right to limit things based on the potential for abuse. If the DM allows you to charge with two lances, what's to stop the Thri-Keen (sp?) Barbarian from charging with four lances?
|
You missing the point of the skill system. You want to pull off something out of the norm while at full speed.That's what the ride skill is for
Using a lance two handed on a mount is like using a longsword two-handed while climbing up a rope.
Thats an incredibly BAD anology. For one thing your using generally two hands to climb.
Think of mounted archery. They use two hands all the time. Folks guide their mounts with legs and knees while doing so.
However, I dont see a moderate ride check out of order. But your example? Piss poor and incredbly bad.
Ummm...why is this still even a conversation? I think Seeker put it very succinctly when he contradicted his entire thesis with this statement:
"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."
At this point he is VERY VERY right. He's saying that D&D and PF in general are not good simulationist systems. And he's right, because they are fantasy systems. What this correct statement does is unravel every point he (and his allies) have tried to make in this thread.
I made no contradiction, I was replying to someone else. Pathfinder is not a super realistic system. We all know this. However the system does give a nod toward simulation, as best it can given what it is
Some of us embrace that, and will not allow things we find brake the simulation. It is not a contradiction, to say we know a long sword isn't 5 pounds or that the system uses hp but we find the ideal of two lances at once to much of a simulation beaker for us.
I do not like manga themes in my games, no 15' swords the size of a car, No wuxia themed fighting , no silly monkey grip, no using two lances.
If I wanted more realistic I would play something else, but I do want a nod toward believability in my games.
Thats an incredibly BAD anology. For one thing your using generally two hands to climb.
Think of mounted archery. They use two hands all the time. Folks guide their mounts with legs and knees while doing so.
However, I dont see a moderate ride check out of order. But your example? Piss poor and incredbly bad.
Yes, yes it was and I admit that. I have been swayed to change my mind on what is really a light lance and two handed fighting, back on page 1 or 2.
We have now moved on to using two lances at the same time
I do not like manga themes in my games, no 15' swords the size of a car, No wuxia themed fighting , no silly monkey grip, no using two lances.
If I wanted more realistic I would play something else, but I do want a nod toward believability in my games.
+1 here. As I said elsewhere, suspension of disbelief only goes so far.
As a side note, I really hate the Monkey Grip idea... the idea of using a Large or Huge Greatsword seems cool until you take a look at the swords wielded by Large and Huge Miniatures and compare them to Medium miniatures. The swords are 2-4 times the height of the medium characters. How are you going to swing a 15' sword in a 10' corridor? "Well the rules don't say I can't"! Attitudes like that really frustrate me. Basic physics will never be ignored in my games just because the rules support ignoring them.
Basic physics will never be ignored in my games just because the rules support ignoring them.So no magic, then?
Ah that straw man again. Boy is he getting tired.
Magic by default over rules physics or work outside the norm. Now if you have magic to do something odd and silly then it may work, but without it some things just do not work.
If your fighter is using a 15 foot sword, there is magic somewhere there, if he is flying or doing something else just as odd or magical, he is clearly not a fighter.
And no don't start with fighter's can't have nice things, they can. What they can not do is have magical ability and stay fighters
Basic physics will never be ignored in my games just because the rules support ignoring them.So no magic, then?Ah that straw man again. Boy is he getting tired.
Magic by default over rules physics or work outside the norm. Now if you have magic to do something odd and silly then it may work, but without it some things just do not work.
If your fighter is using a 15 foot sword, there is magic somewhere there, if he is flying or doing something else just as odd or magical, he is clearly not a fighter.
And no don't start with fighter's can't have nice things, they can. What they can not do is have magical ability and stay fighters
But magic is part of the physics of the D&D setting. Things dont work the same in D&D that they do in the real world. Attempting to apply real world logic to part of the system and then ignoring it in the rest is the reason people claim spellcasters are so much better than non-spell casters... people go "oh its magic, so its ok that it breaks everything." and then "god no! you can not using a large weapon in one hand, I dont care what the feat says!"
D&D is a fantasy setting where people can do things that cant be done in the real world, you really shouldnt be breaking the game by trying to remove some parts that done fit the real world while leaving others. You destroy any sense of balance by doing so.
"Fighters don't get nice things" follows this train of logic:1. Some classes are magic, some are not.
2. Only magic classes are allowed to do unrealistic things.
3. So non-magic classes (particularly fighters) are only allowed to do realistic things.
4. Almost everything cool ("nice things") in D&D is unrealistic.
5. So, fighters do not get nice things.You can break this chain by letting fighters do unrealistic things, but as long as you shackle them with no magic AND no unrealistic tricks then, in your game, fighters do not get nice things. By breaking #1 or #2, then you allow fighters to have nice things again.
Sure they gain nice things. They much like any other class in my games do not gain what I would call "silly" or mood breaking things.
Your chain is flawed
1. Some classes are magic, some are not.{THIS IS CORRECT}
2. Only magic classes are allowed to do unrealistic things.{THIS IS NOT CORRECT}
3. So non-magic classes (particularly fighters) are only allowed to do realistic things.{THIS IS NOT CORRECT}
4. Almost everything cool ("nice things") in D&D is unrealistic.
5. So, fighters do not get magic powers
All classes use the same world, the same rules. Magic is a part of that. Any class that can use magic can do somethings others can not. But they are bound by the same "laws" as everyone else. All classes do unrealistic things, some have magic ablity some do not
If by "nice things" you mean spell like ablitys and magical powers then no fighters will not have them
If by "nice things" you mean cool things they can do then yes they can have them
You can do what you like at your table. At mine I will not be allowing anyone to use two lances at the same time.
I have yet to see this so called flaw you keep talking about. If you want to use magic, play a class that uses magic.
Magic has nothing to do with using two lances. Not a single thing. I would not allow any class to do it, magic or none magic.
I will not allow magic classes to use mood breaking things as well, Casting a spell is not mood breaking, doing something silly might well be. I have no examples off the top of my head other then the ninja backflipping wizard. I outlaw the same thing if a wizard,ranger,cleric paladin or joe the farmer tried it as well. It has nothing at all to do with class
And I still can not fig out why outlawing one silly thing is "wrong" and unfair when it breaks not only mine but my players sense of the games mood
And opinion is all this whole thread is. My posts and your own.