Lance silliness


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 363 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Wow, I left this thread a couple of days ago and now there's like 200 posts. After reading through the posts I think I have to clear things up. To me the lance thing was never about a realism vs. D&D thing, it was more about common sense vs. RAW. The day after I made this thread my player came to me and said he had abandoned the 2H lance idea because he thought it was silly, so I want to apologize to him for calling him a munchin earlier on.

It seems like this discussion has turned out to be an apples vs. oranges scenario where some thinks it's alright to dual wield lances while others wants to keep closer to real-life historical combat styles. I think there is no right or wrong in that matter but as a DM I think trying to exploit the rules and find loopholes to "break" the game is bad.


Mortagon wrote:

Wow, I left this thread a couple of days ago and now there's like 200 posts. After reading through the posts I think I have to clear things up. To me the lance thing was never about a realism vs. D&D thing, it was more about common sense vs. RAW. The day after I made this thread my player came to me and said he had abandoned the 2H lance idea because he thought it was silly, so I want to apologize to him for calling him a munchin earlier on.

It seems like this discussion has turned out to be an apples vs. oranges scenario where some thinks it's alright to dual wield lances while others wants to keep closer to real-life historical combat styles. I think there is no right or wrong in that matter but as a DM I think trying to exploit the rules and find loopholes to "break" the game is bad.

Except it's not trying to find exploits and loopholes to "break" the game.

It's trying to employ the rules to create a character that can genuinely contribute when compared to the better classes.


kyrt-ryder wrote:


Except it's not trying to find exploits and loopholes to "break" the game.

It's trying to employ the rules to create a character that can genuinely contribute when compared to the better classes.

Using two lances is indeed using a loophole. The lance is a two-handed weapon that on a mount you use one handed. No one thought to put in the "you can still one use one" into the lance entry. It is loophole abuse pure and simple, which normally can not be done save with splat book cheese. That does not make it any less of a loophole


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


Except it's not trying to find exploits and loopholes to "break" the game.

It's trying to employ the rules to create a character that can genuinely contribute when compared to the better classes.

Using two lances is indeed using a loophole. The lance is a two-handed weapon that on a mount you use one handed. No one thought to put in the "you can still one use one" into the lance entry. It is loophole abuse pure and simple, which normally can not be done save with splat book cheese. That does not make it any less of a loophole

It's no different from using a longsword in each hand, except there are only special circumstances that you can use it in.

And for the record, there is 'some' cheese in splats, mostly when combining splats, but don't even try to pretend core is perfect.

Why do you find it so absurdly broken that the fighter can do something cool? Like I said I've actually had a PC in my campaign using this (and riding a dragon with upwards of 50 strength and using Tremendous Charge) and it was completely awesome.


kyrt-ryder wrote:


And for the record, there is 'some' cheese in splats, mostly when combining splats, but don't even try to pretend core is perfect.

This I'll agree with. Splats had some good stuff, but you had to watch some players(not all but you know the ones) who would get combos that were never meant to be but together and all hell would come loose

I never said I found it broken, I said I found it mood breaking and would not allow it.

Why the hell do you guys keep insisting this is about the fighter. It effects any and every body using two lances not one player or one class. It's one thing I say no to. And guess what it's not game ending to ban it


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

Why does everyone keep trying to change Seeker's opinion? The opinion belongs to the person. Is there any reason why Seeker should not be able to houserule one thing ahead of time in a game DMed by Seeker?

It is ONE thing that Seekerofshadowlight is not allowing for a game DMed by Seekerofshadowlight to prevent ANY class from trying this. In this case, its not "Fighters cannot have nice things" it is "nobody can do this one thing in Seeker's game."

The fact that I might or might not allow this in my game is totally besides the point... because thats MY game.

This dead horse has two lances through it already people. :)

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Plus it's good to explain what "fighters don't get nice things" means every so often, so that people understand that.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

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

Interesting, could you provide some examples of unrealistic things that are not magical that non-magical classes could do and are "cool".


Read the feat and combat section, that cover a good chunk of it, role playing and creatively covers the rest.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Read the feat and combat section, that cover a good chunk of it, role playing and creatively covers the rest.

So you can't come up with a single example of cool non-magical things that non-magical classes can do. That is pretty telling.


I gave you a whole chapter of unrealistic stuff they could do. the archer feat chains alone are well up there In unbelievable

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I gave you a whole chapter of unrealistic stuff they could do. the archer feat chains alone are well up there In unbelievable

For example, there's a feat that lets you get +4 to hit situationally. Oh, oh, and a feat that lets you get +3 to damage! Exciting stuff.

Part of the problem is that magic, be it spells or magic items, are allowed to add a new and interesting thing that your character couldn't do before, whereas martial classes are given 95% of the realistic things at level 1-5 and then get +X to doing those realistic things. When someone comes up with a new thing to do, typically by combining the +X to realistic things feats in an unusual way, it's rapidly slapped down by a certain element as "unrealistic".

I think this is a lot of the reason for fighters tending to feel like Johner from Alien: Resurrection ("I dunno, I mostly just hurt people!")


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I gave you a whole chapter of unrealistic stuff they could do. the archer feat chains alone are well up there In unbelievable

Well considering there are things like Mounted Combat feats and Two-Weapon Fighting feats, but you have already said those shouldn't be used together in some particular fashions. So that is why I want specific examples. You say non-magical characters can do non-magical cool things, provide some specific examples. Stop being vague about it if you truly believe there are some.


Man if you want to cast spell play a spell caster. The "I can't cast spells so am useless " is getting old

You wanted something none magic that was unrealistic so I gave you most of the archery feats,[rapid reload is magic more or less} there is also the deflect, catch arrows feats among other. But your wanting magic power where there is none to be had.

Kinda pointless to feed you guys as your not gonna be happy as long as your non-caster is a non-caster

Edit: Btw we are massively off topic.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Man if you want to cast spell play a spell caster. The "I can't cast spells so am useless " is getting old

It's not "I can't cast spells so I am useless." It's "Martial classes don't get new and interesting things to do as they level up but magic classes do." You're outright banning a new and interesting thing for martial classes to do because you think it's unrealistic, and that's a bad idea as a GM.

Paizo, to their credit, decided to give barbarians and rogues nice things. (Not necessarily effective things in the former case, alas, but nice things.) I'm not sure why the fighter or paladin wielding two lances is more or less silly than, say, the barbarian biting people or the rogue hitting people so hard it dispels their buffs.

We're still on topic. We're discussing your reasoning for not allowing martial classes to do this.

Silver Crusade

1. the second hand unless your lean over is only steading the weapon not helping with the impact. So the str of the impact from your discreption is the same one or two handed.

2. If you could use a lance or spear two haned from horse back? Why hase no one if the past few thousand years done it?

3. If you could use a lance or spear in each hand from horse back? Why hase no one in the past few thousand years done it?

4. If you dont like some thing. Its your game tell them no. I'm willing to lisen to my players arguments. But I still wont let one of my players use Two Weapon Fighting with over sized two weapon fighing. To use two Bastard Swords. I dont care if the rules say you can.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

calagnar wrote:
3. If you could use a lance or spear in each hand from horse back? Why hase no one in the past few thousand years done it?

Because nobody in the past few thousand years is a fantasy hero.


This is how I see it

A lance is a two-handed weapon.

A lance is a two-handed weapon that while mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand (you would get 1 X strength bonus).

A lance is a two-handed weapon that while mounted, you can wield a lance with two hands (you would get 1.5 X strength bonus).

When charging you may make a single melee attack.

If character wants to use two lances on foot she/he must find and use feats to use two two-handed weapons.

If character wants to use two lances while mounted the main hand one would be a two-handed weapon wielded with one hand and the other she/he must find and use feats to use a two-handed weapon in the off hand.

If feats to do this are not part of your game then she/he can not do it.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

JohnHansen wrote:

This is how I see it

A lance is a two-handed weapon.

A lance is a two-handed weapon that while mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand (you would get 1 X strength bonus).

A lance is a two-handed weapon that while mounted, you can wield a lance with two hands (you would get 1.5 X strength bonus).

When charging you may make a single melee attack.

If character wants to use two lances on foot she/he must find and use feats to use two two-handed weapons.

If character wants to use two lances while mounted the main hand one would be a two-handed weapon wielded with one hand and the other she/he must find and use feats to use a two-handed weapon in the off hand.

If feats to do this are not part of your game then she/he can not do it.

This is how I see it

A bastard sword is a two-handed weapon.

A bastard sword is a two-handed weapon that, if you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency you can wield with one hand (you would get 1 X strength bonus).

A lance is a two-handed weapon that you can wield with two hands (you would get 1.5 X strength bonus).

If character wants to use two bastard swords, the main hand one would be a two-handed weapon wielded with one hand, and the other she/he must find and use feats to use a two-handed weapon in the off hand.

If feats to do this are not part of your game then she/he can not do it.


Man oh man, the "it's in the rules so physics be damned my character can do it and the DM better not tell me no" arguments just make me shake my head.

Tell me... would all of you "it's in the rules" folks allow a Thri-Keen or whatever those four armed bugs are called do a four lance charge if the player located some obscure feats that technically allowed it? They have four arms after all so they should be able to hold four lances, right? If your answer is yes, it's obvious you don't seem to care about game balance... game balance being the DM's number two job.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Dork Lord wrote:

Man oh man, the "it's in the rules so physics be damned my character can do it and the DM better not tell me no" arguments just make me shake my head.

Tell me... would all of you "it's in the rules" folks allow a Thri-Keen or whatever those four armed bugs are called do a four lance charge if the player located some obscure feats that technically allowed it? They have four arms after all so they should be able to hold four lances, right? If your answer is yes, it's obvious you don't seem to care about game balance... game balance being the DM's number two job.

So are you opposing it because it's unrealistic, or because it's gamebreaking?

Because obviously it's a no-go if it's gamebreaking but I tend to suspect that it isn't, especially since it comes online right about the same time that things gain the ability to either fly or completely ruin your mount's (or your) day. I don't think that a random individual monster race not noted for mounted combat and rarely used for 3e PCs is that relevant, but lots of stuff that two-armed characters should be allowed to do gets a little goofy if you give it to thri-keen.

As for realism, I don't see how it's realistic for barbarians to bite people for the same damage as a longsword, but I haven't outlawed it because fantasy heroes get to do fantastic stuff.


A Man In Black wrote:
Dork Lord wrote:

Man oh man, the "it's in the rules so physics be damned my character can do it and the DM better not tell me no" arguments just make me shake my head.

Tell me... would all of you "it's in the rules" folks allow a Thri-Keen or whatever those four armed bugs are called do a four lance charge if the player located some obscure feats that technically allowed it? They have four arms after all so they should be able to hold four lances, right? If your answer is yes, it's obvious you don't seem to care about game balance... game balance being the DM's number two job.

So are you opposing it because it's unrealistic, or because it's gamebreaking?

Because obviously it's a no-go if it's gamebreaking but I tend to suspect that it isn't, especially since it comes online right about the same time that things gain the ability to either fly or completely ruin your mount's (or your) day.

As for realism, I don't see how it's realistic for barbarians to bite people for the same damage as a longsword, but I haven't outlawed it because fantasy heroes get to do fantastic stuff.

Both as a matter of fact.

I'm not talking about bite damage... I'm talking about things like (for example) characters swinging 20' Greatswords around with no penalty in a 10' corridor. "Well I have the feats to do it and the rules don't say I can't". Come on now... freaking -physics-! How do you swing a sword that's bigger than the room it's in, let alone lift the thing? Do you really, -honestly- see nothing wrong with a player doing this? A four lance charge would deal x3 damage for -each- lance. That's effectively a x12 damage charge. Heck, even a x6 damage charge is too much in my opinion. The monsters in the Beastiary aren't balanced with player cheese in mind. I've had a player who played a Duskblade in my old 3.5 game deal so much damage in one round that he could have at level 15 honest to god taken out epic level monsters. There comes a point where a player's character is so "cool" that he breaks the game. I refuse to let that crap happen in my games anymore.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Dork Lord wrote:
I'm not talking about bite damage... I'm talking about things like (for example) characters swinging 20' Greatswords around with no penalty in a 10' corridor. "Well I have the feats to do it and the rules don't say I can't". Come on now... freaking -physics-! How do you swing a sword that's bigger than the room it's in, let alone lift the thing? Do you really, -honestly- see nothing wrong with a player doing this?

It's called a thrust. And that large greatsword keeps getting longer every time you post; I don't think 8' tall ogres wield swords two and a half times as tall as they are. Assuming a 5' long greatsword is proportional to a 6' tall human, a hill giant's greatsword is about 8.5' -ish long. That's going to be awkward, but hey, Monkey Grip comes with a convenient to-hit penalty to simulate that, how about that.

A 20' long greatsword is a huge-sized greatsword made for a titan, and is so large even a cloud giant would have trouble wielding it. Nobody's suggesting that medium-sized PCs should be wielding that.

Quote:
A four lance charge would deal x3 damage for -each- lance. That's effectively a x12 damage charge.

Thri-keen get to do goofy stuff like this all the time. The problem here is that you allowed thri-keen in your game, and then made up a homebrew Multiweapon Pounce feat for them. (No such feat currently exists.) Nobody's arguing that players should be allowed to break the game.

Quote:
Heck, even a x6 damage charge is too much in my opinion. The monsters in the Beastiary aren't balanced with player cheese in mind. I've had a player who played a Duskblade in my old 3.5 game deal so much damage in one round that he could have at level 15 honest to god taken out epic level monsters. There comes a point where a player's character is so "cool" that he breaks the game. I refuse to let that crap happen in my games anymore.

Let's see. Paladins are the obvious choice for this, having both mounts and a preference for TWF. This comes online at level 7, assuming the paladin takes TW Pounce before ITWF. Oh hell, let's just build it, why not.

One sec. If this is completely rocking level-appropriate foes in a way that a single lance does not, then you have an argument.

-edit- Okay, Pat the gender-ambiguous pally, go.

Spoiler:
Quote:

Pat the Ambiguous, human paladin crash dummy. (Level 7, elite array.)

Ability Scores:
STR: 16 (+3) (13 base, +1 level, +2 belt)
DEX: 16 (+3) (15 base, +1 level)
CON: 13 (+1)
INT: 10 (+0)
WIS: 8 (-1)
CHA: 12 (+1)

HP: 57 HP (7d10+14)

Saving Throws
Fort: +8 Ref: +6 Will: +5

AC: 21 - Touch 11, Flatfooted 20 (+10 +1 full plate, +1 dex)

Attacks: Lance +9/+4 (d8+4 20/x3) and lance +9 (d8+2 20/x3) OR longsword +9/+4 (d8+4 19-20/x2) and shortsword +9 (d6+1)

Special Attacks:
Smite Evil 3/day - +1 to hit, +7/+14 damage, +1 AC
Spirited Charge

Class Abilities:
Divine Grace
some other stuff, we all know what pallies do

BAB: +7 CMB: +10 CMD: 25

Feats:
Two-Weapon Fighting
Mounted Combat
Ride-By Attack
Spirited Charge
Two-Weapon Pounce

Skills:
Ride +7 (+7 ranks, +3 trained, +2 dex, -5 armor check)
Other stuff, whatever

Gear:
A pair of +1 lances
+1 longsword
Masterwork shortsword
+1 full plate armor
Belt of +2 to str, whatever PF calls it
Masterwork full plate barding
490g of miscellaneous adventuring goods, fluid cash, non-portable gear, etc.

Paul the pony
STR: 20 (+5) (+2 animal companion, +2 level 4 increase)
DEX: 15 (+2) (+2 animal companion)
CON: 18 (+4) (+2 level 4 increase, +1 level)
INT: 2 (-4)
WIS: 12 (+1)
CHA: 6 (-2)

HP: 54 HP (6d8+24)

Saving Throws
Fort: +9 Ref: +7 Will: +3

AC: 23 - Touch 10, Flatfooted 22 (-1 size, +4 natural, +1 dex, +9 full plate barding)

Attacks: +8 bite (d4+5), 2 hooves +3 (d6+2)

BAB: +4 CMB: +9 CMD: 22 (26 against a trip)

Feats:
Armor proficiency (light, medium, heavy)

Skills:
Stuff, it's a horse

Let's go down the level 7 CR list and see how it goes.

  • Aboleths live in the water and are essentially unchargable. Also, DC 22 dominate monster > +3 horse's will save. TWF charge inapplicable.
  • Huge air elementals fly and have flyby attack, so they are unchargeable. TWF charge inapplicable.
  • Young black dragons fly and swim, and can so choose to be unchargeable. That said, their main offense is melee. If Pat charges with both lances while smiting and hits with both (~30% chance), he/she does enough damage to kill the dragon dead. (~120-ish) If Pat had Power Attack instead of TWF/TWP and just one +2 lance, he/she would have a 60% chance to hit and would still likely drop the dragon dead with a smite (~78). TWF slightly worse than simply Power Attacking.
  • Black puddings are immune to lance damage. TWF charge inapplicable.
  • A young brass dragon flies and has a breath weapon that almost certainly owns the horse. If it doesn't, it goes down just like the young black dragon Likely to be unable to charge, TWF slightly worse than Power Attack otherwise.
  • Bulettes burrow, and thus are unchargeable until they charge you. Disengaging from one is unwise unless you are much faster, and Paul the pony is not. Should Pat get the charge on one, he/she can't smite, and thus has a 50% chance per lance to hit for 25.5/19.5 on average. A Power Attacking +2 lance charge has a single 55% chance to hit, for 40.5 on average. Likely to be unable to charge, TWF and Power Attack comparable otherwise.
  • Chimerae fly and hover, and are thus difficult to charge. A double-lance smiting charge drops a chimera assuming both lances hit (~42% chance), and a Power Attacking smiting +2 lance charge hits 65% of the time and needs two passes. Likely to be unable to charge, TWF markedly better than Power Attack otherwise.
  • Chuuls are similar to chimerae. They are harder to hit, but easier to charge. TWF markedly better than Power Attack.
  • Dire bears won't die to your charge. They're unsmitable, so the TWFer has a 60% chance per lance to do 25.5/19.5 on average and the +2 PAer is looking at a single 65% chance to do 40.5 on average. Then the bear grapples you or your horse and you're done charging. Approximately equal damage per charge
  • Okay, this is boring now, does anyone think this isn't a representative sample?

    So we're looking at TW Pounce lance charges being about as good as PA lance charges, especially since a dedicated single lance charger would have more str and another feat. Charging is just getting hard, since lots of enemies fly or otherwise go where a horse can't, so while two lances will get better as you can take Power Attack and get higher str, fewer and fewer enemies are chargeable.

    So. I took the chargiest chargey class in the game, optimized it to charge with two lances, and did about as well as a paladin with one lance. How is two lances breaking the game again?

    -edit- Plus the TWF lancer should have another -2 to hit for a lance in each hand, as pres man pointed out.


  • lance attacks are too high considering he is fighting with effectively two one-handed weapons, not a light weapon in his off-hand.

    Silver Crusade

    I have in the past make broken charters. Asked the DM if i could play it. Then told the DM thay should not let me play it. He let me play it yep it was broken and way over powered. But by the rules I could do it. After the first few times my DM leard his lessen and checkes my chaters befor he will let me play them now. As a DM I expect my players to act like me I check them one at a time and make sure there is not any thing in there that can be game braking or just stupped. I like fantasy setings it's full of magic and wonder. But I feal the basic laws of phics apply unless its a magic effect. Thats just how I run my games. The reason for not leting him dule weald two bastard swords. Fist I owen a few of them the handle and pumles are to long for you to be able to do it. I have trained in using meny types of weapon. You can use two long swords with only some dificulity. With Bastard Swords now mater how meny times I try to get it to work the handles or pumles keap hiting in the recovery of the weapon on on the blocks.

    And the most inportant rule to being a DM. Learing to tell your players NO!

    That is probly the hardest thing to do becous you normaly play with a group of friends. But the fact if you want them to alow it. Run a game and let some one use it. Even if its just a one nighter. It's much harder to look at things when you have to up the monsters becous your players are riping thow them. Becous you alowed somthing in your game knowing that was not the entent of the wrighter.


    Wow, so a simple NPC with a level of barbarian and a level of fighter can easily deliver 3d8 + 27 points of damage on a mounted charge! [Mounted combat, ride by attack, spirited charge, strength 18 and raging] And that is assuming he is only using one lance, and no critical hit! And with all the potential for NPC's surprising those high skill point fighters and paladins out there too! That would mean Mr. NPC could prolly get off a surprise attack, and if he rolls high enough on his initiative get off a second attack, before the party reacts. And imagine if there are more than one of those NPC's?

    Could be some TPK's before all is said and done.

    RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

    I removed some posts. Be nice.


    Ross Byers wrote:
    I removed some posts. Be nice.

    Agreed, and edited. But hopefully you saw my point.


    I think we all agree this isn't a balance issue. 1.5 Str to a lance from horseback isn't going to break the game.

    The player is trying to get the best mechanics out of the situation, though, as you mention, the visuals are a bit silly.

    My recommendation to you is to put on your DM hat and rule 0 it.

    Tell the player that they can wield the lance and get the 2 handed Str bonus, but for the sake of imagery his character will be using it in one hand. Tell him that if he chooses to use his off hand for anything else, he loses the 1.5 Str modifier.

    Problem solved?


    Dork Lord wrote:

    Man oh man, the "it's in the rules so physics be damned my character can do it and the DM better not tell me no" arguments just make me shake my head.

    Tell me... would all of you "it's in the rules" folks allow a Thri-Keen or whatever those four armed bugs are called do a four lance charge if the player located some obscure feats that technically allowed it? They have four arms after all so they should be able to hold four lances, right? If your answer is yes, it's obvious you don't seem to care about game balance... game balance being the DM's number two job.

    Of course I would. You forget that by being a Thri-Keen the PC is giving up a ton of PC class level advantages.

    Now, I haven't experimented with the PF monster PC rules much, so this might have changed, but in 3.5 a level adjustment was bad news.

    Also, there is no such thing as 'oversized multi-weapon fighting' so if the thrikeen did so he'd be eating a -4 penalty on the attack rolls.

    Is it perfectly balanced? Maybe maybe not. Is it likely to happen often? Maybe maybe not. Is it completely awesome and still not breaking as oposed to the stronger classes in the game? Hell yeah.

    The only time it would be a problem is if there were other melees in the party in which case I would set them aside and help them come up with something powerful and awesome (by the rules) to keep up with the Thri-keen.


    Treantmonk wrote:

    I think we all agree this isn't a balance issue. 1.5 Str to a lance from horseback isn't going to break the game.

    The player is trying to get the best mechanics out of the situation, though, as you mention, the visuals are a bit silly.

    My recommendation to you is to put on your DM hat and rule 0 it.

    Tell the player that they can wield the lance and get the 2 handed Str bonus, but for the sake of imagery his character will be using it in one hand. Tell him that if he chooses to use his off hand for anything else, he loses the 1.5 Str modifier.

    Problem solved?

    No, not to me at any rate.

    I think that PC's may be unpleasantly surprised when they get hit with a charge for 40ish points of damage from a fairly simple NPC build with one lance, not to mention more creative builds which will certainly deal much more damage. 1x vs 1.5x can mean the difference between a one hit one kill vs one hit staggered/low on hp/unconscious. Also, when you consider that NPC's can more readily be tailor made for one specific encounter vs pc's which tend to need more flexibility and you get a situation where TPK's may be inevitable. And I do not believe that TPK's benefit the game. The 1x to 1.5x difference can be very telling when you consider how high monster strengths can get. Combine that with some feats, two lances, a surprise situation, and maybe a potion or two, and watch the pc's drop! Also I just cannot suspend my belief enough to see the 1.5x applying to the lance in spite of the RAW. It seems to me that a (singular, one only!) lance is held firmly in the couched position to allow the mount to help deliver that nasty 2x (or 3x with spirited charge) therefore negating the benefit conveyed from swinging/thrusting a weapon with both arms. But as a DM I can run it either way, as long as PC's understand that they can just as easily (probably more likely) be on the receiving end of such damage (probably higher even). Picturing some huge mount with monstrously strengthed rider gives me the shivers.

    I think what would solve this situation to my satisfaction is if the DM could have two power settings; Stun, and Deep Fat Fry. At the beginning of an adventure if he can determine if party members support the idea of two lances, or two hand multiplier damage for wielding a lance one handed, or other such maxing techniques then set up his NPC's in a similar fashion (DFF) as these players are certainly looking for a challenge. On the other hand, if the pc's are just a group of regular joes playing by a more moderate standard then by all means do the same and reciprocate. The first group of PC's shoud be easy to spot as they will have multiple pole arms/lances sticking out of their backpacks, or dual wand wielding familiars. Running a mod this way would require a second set of stats in the mod for each encounter corresponding to the difficulty setting. This way average characters who enjoy the game don't have to get railed by souped up NPC's, and heavy hitting/magic PC's can be all they can be, and receive the same. That would be balance.


    A Man In Black wrote:

    It's called a thrust. And that large greatsword keeps getting longer every time you post; I don't think 8' tall ogres wield swords two and a half times as tall as they are. Assuming a 5' long greatsword is proportional to a 6' tall human, a hill giant's greatsword is about 8.5' -ish long. That's going to be awkward, but hey, Monkey Grip comes with a convenient to-hit penalty to simulate that, how about that.

    A 20' long greatsword is a huge-sized greatsword made for a titan, and is so large even a cloud giant would have trouble wielding it. Nobody's suggesting that medium-sized PCs should be wielding that.

    Have you looked at the swords wielded by Large sized minis? Now compare them to a medium sized mini. That's around a 12' long greatsword. And yes, a Goliath with Monkey Grip can wield a Huge sized 20' long Greatsword that the rules don't say has reach, nor does it have any penalties for being used in a 10' corridor. I am honestly shocked that anyone would have difficulty seeing that such swords can't be used in such confines. But then, some feel that the rules trump anything.... I happen to disagree. Common sense should trump the rules imo. I know playstyles may differ, but I'm just shaking my head here.


    Dork Lord wrote:
    And yes, a Goliath with Monkey Grip can wield a Huge sized 20' long Greatsword that the rules don't say has reach, nor does it have any penalties for being used in a 10' corridor.

    Is this based on the idea that monkey grip and powerful build stack? If so then this is just another example of a long number where people get upset about something without actually understanding how the rules work. Monkey grip and powerful build do not stack. Both allow you to wield a weapon one size larger than you normally are with the same effort, one size larger than medium is large, thus both allow a goliath to wield large weapons. A goliath that takes monkey grip is a moron as it gives them no benefit at all.


    Dork Lord wrote:


    Have you looked at the swords wielded by Large sized minis? Now compare them to a medium sized mini. That's around a 12' long greatsword. And yes, a Goliath with Monkey Grip can wield a Huge sized 20' long Greatsword that the rules don't say has reach, nor does it have any penalties for being used in a 10' corridor. I am honestly shocked that anyone would have difficulty seeing that such swords can't be used in such confines. But then, some feel that the rules trump anything.... I happen to disagree. Common sense should trump the rules imo. I know playstyles may differ, but I'm just shaking my head here.

    First, lets get the one aspect I agree without of the way. A slashing weapon isn't going to be as effective in a hallway too narrow/short for it's use, that's the reason samurais carried katana and wakizashi, for times they needed the smaller weapon in confined spaces. (I personally would just apply a penalty for it, there are creative ways it could be applied, but forbidding they're use is understandable IF it's an oversized weapon. However greatswords can often run into the same problem realistically speaking)

    Alright, now that thats done, on to the other parts. First, your looking in the wrong place to compare the sizes of the weapons. Those mini's have to be made thick enough to fill 4 squares (a 10 by 10 space) and so their height is skewed by realism. A large sized creature (Fire Giant, for example) would use a longsword upwards of 8 feet, a greatsword somewhere between 10 and 12 feet.

    Also, Monkey Grip and Golioth (and Armbands of Might) don't stack. None of them. Their effect is phrased as such (from memory so it might be slightly off) "You can wield a weapon designed for a creature one size larger than you are"

    Note it doesn't say one size larger than you are able to wield, one size larger than you are. Hence, they don't stack.

    However, one interesting point of note, is that you can stack monkey grip with a Heavy Weapon, from the Magic of Faerun, and in one of my campaigns the Samurai is Monkey Gripping - with a houserule that monkeygrip has no penalty, the cost of the featslot is enough- a Platinum Fullblade [Odachi] for 4d8 base damage (Yeah, I know, heavy weapons have their own weird chart, I figured weapons bigger than the chart just use the size chart instead for simplicity)


    A lot of the melee types being denied things is based more on what the DM sees as sensible, than whether or not its broken. I think the suspension of belief should be set aside for the players to be allowed to do more things. Can I see anyone dual wielding katanas effectively in real life? No. Would I allow it in a fantasy game? Yes.

    I might ask the player to list his player as a really big human, as opposed to someone small, but I would not force him to do it.


    Dork Lord wrote:
    A Man In Black wrote:

    It's called a thrust. And that large greatsword keeps getting longer every time you post; I don't think 8' tall ogres wield swords two and a half times as tall as they are. Assuming a 5' long greatsword is proportional to a 6' tall human, a hill giant's greatsword is about 8.5' -ish long. That's going to be awkward, but hey, Monkey Grip comes with a convenient to-hit penalty to simulate that, how about that.

    A 20' long greatsword is a huge-sized greatsword made for a titan, and is so large even a cloud giant would have trouble wielding it. Nobody's suggesting that medium-sized PCs should be wielding that.

    Have you looked at the swords wielded by Large sized minis? Now compare them to a medium sized mini. That's around a 12' long greatsword. And yes, a Goliath with Monkey Grip can wield a Huge sized 20' long Greatsword that the rules don't say has reach, nor does it have any penalties for being used in a 10' corridor. I am honestly shocked that anyone would have difficulty seeing that such swords can't be used in such confines. But then, some feel that the rules trump anything.... I happen to disagree. Common sense should trump the rules imo. I know playstyles may differ, but I'm just shaking my head here.

    +1


    Murgen wrote:
    Dork Lord wrote:
    A Man In Black wrote:

    It's called a thrust. And that large greatsword keeps getting longer every time you post; I don't think 8' tall ogres wield swords two and a half times as tall as they are. Assuming a 5' long greatsword is proportional to a 6' tall human, a hill giant's greatsword is about 8.5' -ish long. That's going to be awkward, but hey, Monkey Grip comes with a convenient to-hit penalty to simulate that, how about that.

    A 20' long greatsword is a huge-sized greatsword made for a titan, and is so large even a cloud giant would have trouble wielding it. Nobody's suggesting that medium-sized PCs should be wielding that.

    Have you looked at the swords wielded by Large sized minis? Now compare them to a medium sized mini. That's around a 12' long greatsword. And yes, a Goliath with Monkey Grip can wield a Huge sized 20' long Greatsword that the rules don't say has reach, nor does it have any penalties for being used in a 10' corridor. I am honestly shocked that anyone would have difficulty seeing that such swords can't be used in such confines. But then, some feel that the rules trump anything.... I happen to disagree. Common sense should trump the rules imo. I know playstyles may differ, but I'm just shaking my head here.
    +1

    What is that +1 for?


    wraithstrike wrote:
    Murgen wrote:
    Dork Lord wrote:
    A Man In Black wrote:

    It's called a thrust. And that large greatsword keeps getting longer every time you post; I don't think 8' tall ogres wield swords two and a half times as tall as they are. Assuming a 5' long greatsword is proportional to a 6' tall human, a hill giant's greatsword is about 8.5' -ish long. That's going to be awkward, but hey, Monkey Grip comes with a convenient to-hit penalty to simulate that, how about that.

    A 20' long greatsword is a huge-sized greatsword made for a titan, and is so large even a cloud giant would have trouble wielding it. Nobody's suggesting that medium-sized PCs should be wielding that.

    Have you looked at the swords wielded by Large sized minis? Now compare them to a medium sized mini. That's around a 12' long greatsword. And yes, a Goliath with Monkey Grip can wield a Huge sized 20' long Greatsword that the rules don't say has reach, nor does it have any penalties for being used in a 10' corridor. I am honestly shocked that anyone would have difficulty seeing that such swords can't be used in such confines. But then, some feel that the rules trump anything.... I happen to disagree. Common sense should trump the rules imo. I know playstyles may differ, but I'm just shaking my head here.
    +1
    What is that +1 for?

    Not knowing how the rules for monkey grip and powerful build work, lol.


    pres man wrote:
    wraithstrike wrote:
    Murgen wrote:
    Dork Lord wrote:
    A Man In Black wrote:

    It's called a thrust. And that large greatsword keeps getting longer every time you post; I don't think 8' tall ogres wield swords two and a half times as tall as they are. Assuming a 5' long greatsword is proportional to a 6' tall human, a hill giant's greatsword is about 8.5' -ish long. That's going to be awkward, but hey, Monkey Grip comes with a convenient to-hit penalty to simulate that, how about that.

    A 20' long greatsword is a huge-sized greatsword made for a titan, and is so large even a cloud giant would have trouble wielding it. Nobody's suggesting that medium-sized PCs should be wielding that.

    Have you looked at the swords wielded by Large sized minis? Now compare them to a medium sized mini. That's around a 12' long greatsword. And yes, a Goliath with Monkey Grip can wield a Huge sized 20' long Greatsword that the rules don't say has reach, nor does it have any penalties for being used in a 10' corridor. I am honestly shocked that anyone would have difficulty seeing that such swords can't be used in such confines. But then, some feel that the rules trump anything.... I happen to disagree. Common sense should trump the rules imo. I know playstyles may differ, but I'm just shaking my head here.
    +1
    What is that +1 for?
    Not knowing how the rules for monkey grip and powerful build work, lol.

    That is what I was thinking. I just wanted him to admit it. :)


    I believe he was agreeing with this statment here

    "But then, some feel that the rules trump anything.... I happen to disagree. Common sense should trump the rules imo. I know playstyles may differ, but I'm just shaking my head here."


    pres man wrote:
    Monkey grip and powerful build do not stack.

    Are you just assuming this or is it actually written in print in one of the books? Because if it isn't you better believe some munchkin player is going to want to combine them. Even if that doesn't work you could make a Half Ogre (large size) with Monkey grip and end up with a creature that can fit in a 10 foot corridor and can wield a 20' sword with no hindrance by the rules. That's my point, not whether Powerful Build and Monkey Grip stack. Even a 12' sword straight up could not be used as a slashing weapon in a 10' corridor... other people seem to have the opinion that as long as the rules don't forbid it, the sky's the limit. I disagree.

    kyrt-ryder wrote:
    First, lets get the one aspect I agree without of the way. A slashing weapon isn't going to be as effective in a hallway too narrow/short for it's use, that's the reason samurais carried katana and wakizashi, for times they needed the smaller weapon in confined spaces. (I personally would just apply a penalty for it, there are creative ways it could be applied, but forbidding they're use is understandable IF it's an oversized weapon. However greatswords can often run into the same problem realistically speaking)

    -Thank you-. That was really my main point... that as a DM you have to apply common sense to things and that "well, the rules allow it" isn't a good enough reason in some cases to me.


    Dork Lord wrote:
    Are you just assuming this or is it actually written in print in one of the books? Because if it isn't you better believe some munchkin player is going to want to combine them.

    Here is what it says.

    Complete Warrior wrote:

    p. 103

    MONKEY GRIP [GENERAL]
    ... You can use melee weapons one size catagory larger than you are with a -2 penalty ...
    Races of Stone wrote:

    p. 56

  • Powerful build: ... A goliath can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty. ...
  • Seems pretty clear, no stacking. Both allow you to wield weapons one size larger than they are.


    Dork Lord wrote:
    pres man wrote:
    Monkey grip and powerful build do not stack.

    Are you just assuming this or is it actually written in print in one of the books? Because if it isn't you better believe some munchkin player is going to want to combine them. Even if that doesn't work you could make a Half Ogre (large size) with Monkey grip and end up with a creature that can fit in a 10 foot corridor and can wield a 20' sword with no hindrance by the rules. That's my point, not whether Powerful Build and Monkey Grip stack. Even a 12' sword straight up could not be used as a slashing weapon in a 10' corridor... other people seem to have the opinion that as long as the rules don't forbid it, the sky's the limit. I disagree.

    kyrt-ryder wrote:
    First, lets get the one aspect I agree without of the way. A slashing weapon isn't going to be as effective in a hallway too narrow/short for it's use, that's the reason samurais carried katana and wakizashi, for times they needed the smaller weapon in confined spaces. (I personally would just apply a penalty for it, there are creative ways it could be applied, but forbidding they're use is understandable IF it's an oversized weapon. However greatswords can often run into the same problem realistically speaking)
    -Thank you-. That was really my main point... that as a DM you have to apply common sense to things and that "well, the rules allow it" isn't a good enough reason in some cases to me.

    The rules are made for balance. If you start injecting what makes sense as a balancing factor the rules fall apart. As an example keen(magical), and improved critical(feat based on skill) should stack, but for balance purposes they dont. The burn ability of fire elementals catches you on fire whether you have something flammable on or not. The scorching ray spell, also a magical fire source does not. There are a few other examples, but I think you get my point.

    That does not mean follow the rules blindly, but the balance aspect is more important that what makes sense, or at least it should be.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 3.5 FAQ states it, and monkey grip and powerful charge both reference your actual size, not the weapon size category you are allowed to wield. It's a well known fact that they don't stack, at least on the internet anyway.

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    The rules allow it, it isn't gamebreaking, and it would amuse one of your players. That isn't reason enough?

    Learn to say yes.


    Murgen wrote:


    Also I just cannot suspend my belief enough to see the 1.5x applying to the lance in spite of the RAW.

    That requires suspension of disbelief? That sound a bit weird...

    [irony]But then, some feel that the rules trump anything.... I happen to disagree. Common sense should trump the rules imo. I know playstyles may differ, but I'm just shaking my head here.[/irony]

    Also -

    Quote:
    1x vs 1.5x can mean the difference between a one hit one kill vs one hit staggered/low on hp/unconscious.

    That's true of any increase in damage. Do you not allow criticals either in your campaign?

    Surely players who roll criticals are just power-gaming munchkins who bend the rules at every opportunity. They should be punished unmercilessly by showing them how criticals can cause player characters to die. IS THAT WHAT THEY WANT????


    Treantmonk wrote:
    Murgen wrote:


    Also I just cannot suspend my belief enough to see the 1.5x applying to the lance in spite of the RAW.

    That requires suspension of disbelief? That sound a bit weird...

    [irony]But then, some feel that the rules trump anything.... I happen to disagree. Common sense should trump the rules imo. I know playstyles may differ, but I'm just shaking my head here.[/irony]

    Also -

    Quote:
    1x vs 1.5x can mean the difference between a one hit one kill vs one hit staggered/low on hp/unconscious.

    That's true of any increase in damage. Do you not allow criticals either in your campaign?

    Surely players who roll criticals are just power-gaming munchkins who bend the rules at every opportunity. They should be punished unmercilessly by showing them how criticals can cause player characters to die. IS THAT WHAT THEY WANT????

    Actually criticals only come up on certain rolls of the dice, as I am sure you well know. The other damage we were discussing is for any spirited charge, which is on any mounted charge for any pc or npc with the appropriate feats. A build easily reached by 2nd level as I demonstrated. Why you try to compare the two situations is beyond any common sense explanation. And as I posted earlier, I can run it either way. But I wonder how many posters on this thread would cry "foul" when the mod throws up some creative build that causes the kind of damage that you and others defend in their own builds. Furthermore, if you re-read my answer to your earlier post you can see that I didn't suggest banning anything, just responding in kind. What would be wrong with that?

    And I do agree with earlier posts that said common sense should trump the rules. But if you want a min-max campaign then I would be happy to run it that way. But don't be surprised when you take deadly damage from a min-maxed attack. But if I had my choice, and I do, then I choose the world where characters are not dual wielding lances, or large greatswords, or any other nonsense like that.


    For what it's worth Mugen, I wouldn't cry foul at all, that's exactly how my campaigns run, both the ones I play and play in, for the most part.

    201 to 250 of 363 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Lance silliness All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.