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.
Yes.
Now take 40 average damage (3d8 + 27; str 22 from rage = 9x3 for the 27) from mounted 2nd level fighter/barbarian charging you with a lance at apl 1-2 without any crit. Don't forget to add the 1d6 when you fall off your horse, if you were mounted. Are you still having fun? Oh, and the comparisons only get worse the higher you go with stronger monsters dual wielding whatever.
But sure, I can run it that way if you like. But will you complain if mod authors show the same kind of "creativity" when they create encounters?
I stand by my earlier suggestion. Have two difficulty settings. If the party is comprised of "creative" builds then use the more difficult version of the mod. Really, how can you disagree with this idea? It's ok to dual wield large greatswords, lances, wands, etc... Right?
Actually criticals only come up on certain rolls of the dice, as I am sure you well know.
They do, but the odds can be manipulated. A scimitar gets more crits than a club.
Crits fill the criteria you mentioned in your post why using the mechanics for 2 handed use of the lance was such a bad idea. It can create the difference between wounding and death.
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 does the source of the damage matter? Your post was discussing the potential deadly consequences of increased damage from completely legal sources, and why one source should not be allowed, or result in punishment if players used it.
Why you try to compare the two situations is beyond any common sense explanation.
To point out the nonsense of your claim that because increased damage means that someone who might have only been rendered unconsious by an attack may die instead, such sources of increased damage should be discouraged.
Your argument could have just as easily targeted other completely legal methods of increasing damage, like having a higher Str score, taking weapon specialization, or using a greatsword instead of a dagger.
Discouraging a completely legal method of increasing damage BECAUSE it increases damage is nonsensical. Thus the comparison.
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.
I couldn't answer that. Not me. I love to get big hulking brutes based completely on doing damage as my adversary in most campaigns, but then again, I usually play casters.
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?
Really, when I read your indicated post, it starts with "No, not to me at any rate."
You don't suggest banning, that is true, but you are clearly quite venomous to any suggestion that a character might take a legal option within the rules that is legal.
There is nothing wrong with optimizing NPC's. However, your post suggests using your position as DM as a "Me vs You" scenario because your players chose to optimize (at least in your hypothetical) - which is distasteful.
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.
He says rubbing his hands together in evil glee.
But don't be surprised when you take deadly damage from a min-maxed attack.
Because the optimizer should be punished. We get it.
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.
And I would be happy to run it for you, if the NPCs can enjoy the benefit of a creative build as well. But I suspect that not all those on here can say the same as you.
But in any case I would still prefer the gaming world that wouldn't push credibility too far, magical or martial, as a DM or a gamer.
There is nothing wrong with optimizing NPC's. However, your post suggests using your position as DM as a "Me vs You" scenario because your players chose to optimize (at least in your hypothetical) - which is distasteful.
It's usually only a DM vs Player thing if the players have made it that way... at least that's been the case with me. The fact is that if a DM pulls the same "creative" uses of feats and weapons for NPCs as the players in these examples are, odds are you're going to have TPKs left and right. Every DM I have ever played under has always warned the players that what's good for the PCs is good for the NPCs. You seem to be suggesting that it's ok for the PCs to ooze cheese out their pores but if the DM's NPCs do the same it's unfair. Is that assertion correct?
The fact is that if a DM pulls the same "creative" uses of feats and weapons for NPCs as the players in these examples are, odds are you're going to have TPKs left and right.
I'm not sure why. When I run I usually optimize NPC's the same as I would optimize my character, and I don't find that I end up killing PC's.
Of course, I'm not running with the goal of killing the PC's either.
You seem to be suggesting that it's ok for the PCs to ooze cheese out their pores but if the DM's NPCs do the same it's unfair. Is that assertion correct?
Nope, I'm suggesting that the DM plotting to kill PC's by giving them a "taste of their own medicine" as is implied in the previous post is poor DMing.
Optimizing NPC's to the level of the PC's just makes sense, as long as you have a DM who's goal is to challenge the players and tell a story, not teach them a lesson about why in his campaign, they should fear retribution if they take optimal choices for their characters.
I'm not talking about intentionally killing the party.... a DM who makes his NPCs too effective can do that inadvertently, but sometimes it feels like you have no choice but to level the playing field when your PCs treat every encounter that was supposed to be challenging like a cakewalk.
Actually criticals only come up on certain rolls of the dice, as I am sure you well know.My dear Treant,
Of course odds can be manipulated, but your comparisons go too far. The lance in question does x3 plus 1.5 strength on every spirited charge, not even counting a crit. Whereas the scimiar only crits on 18-20 for x2. So not a realistic comparison in my opinion.
Also, anyone can roll a crit, so that playing field is level already. But I don't see too many NPC's double wielding lances, large greatswords, wands, fillintheblankwithcreativebuild, etc... Or not yet at any rate.
Also even crits have some balance in that the easier crits have a lower multiplier. So once again, I don't get your comparisons.
Also you brought up that damage is from totally legal sources, which is the root of the whole argument. Totally legal to who? If it is legal, then shouldn't monsters get to use it too? Why do you portray me as evily rubbing my hands together for suggesting that monsters should enjoy creative builds as well?
I have no venom for you Treant. I just enjoy my D+D a little more down to Earth. I don't think a character has to squeeze every drop of rules permitted damage (especially if it sometimes defies my definition of common sense) in order to defeat monsters. Instead I think that a party that shows good teamwork can have a rewarding and fun experience together. In fact characters that single handedly slay the opponents leave me looking for other tables in future settings.
But I do enjoy reading posts by others including yourself to see how others see it.
From page 141,
"Two handed; Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon."
Why? Well it just doesn't say. Why should a two handed swing cause 1.5 times more strength damage than one handed? I play some golf every now and again, and sometimes it is beneficial to train by swinging at the ball with only one arm. And you know what, the ball just doesn't seem to go as far versus when I swing with both arms :) So using this comparison I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that the authors believed that swinging/thrusting brings more strength into the equation. But no such swinging or thrusting goes on when you charge with a lance, in my opinion. Instead you couch the lance under your arm and brace it against your shoulder and use your mount's strength to do your work. In fact you get double damage everytime you make a mounted charge with a lance (x3 with spirited charge). But because the authors unfortunately used the word "can" instead of "must" then it would appear legal to further increase the damage as if the wielder were swingig/thrusting the lance, which he is not.
And that is why a lance should not also get 1.5 strength bonus on top of the already 2x bonus for using a lance in a mounted charge.
The Fighter1/Barbarian 1 in the above example is sitting on a generic warhorse most likely, which has ~20hp, very poor AC, and very poor saves.
Get someone to cast Web or Entangle and that scary 40+dmg hit never happens.
If it's magic vs. martial - magic will normally win.
Often though, both sides are using both magic and martial in a team effort.
As for the problems with large horses - I agree, however, there are ways around that.
Halfling on a Riding Dog for example...
Of course odds can be manipulated, but your comparisons go too far.
They were taken far on purpose to prove a point. A player wants to use his lance two handed. Yes, that will increase his damage, but it's hardly a game breaker.
Will the charging lance weilder be doing more damage than a pure rogue using TWF with bleeding sneak attacks?
Or in the matter of a standard attack, will he do more than a Druid Wildshaped into a Stegosaurus using Vital strike?
Or will he simply be taking an attack type that is less powerful than these options and making it viable?
But I don't see too many NPC's double wielding lances, large greatswords, wands, fillintheblankwithcreativebuild, etc... Or not yet at any rate.
any NPC with a lance can wield it two handed. It's not a measure of the build - it just requires using your other hand to hold the lance.
Not sure what all this about Large Greatswords is about. Are they that much better than a regular greatsword? I didn't think they were.
Wands? I'm not sure what's wrong with them.
For what it's worth - I agree that using "tricks" to make your character more powerful by using the rules in a way they clearly weren't intended is not behavior to be encouraged.
However, I really don't think the Lance thing is abusive.
Surely, if the player was trying to "get away" with something, he wouldn't have approached his DM about it beforehand. This seems like the kind of behaviour to encourage.
I really don't think having a chracter who charges with a lance doing a lot of damage when they hit is going to be unbalancing in any way. There are so many ways that mounted chargers can be foiled, so many ways to wreck a charge, make mounts difficult to use, even without trying...this player is looking for a payoff for that, I don't think that's unreasonable.
Totally legal to who? If it is legal, then shouldn't monsters get to use it too? Why do you portray me as evily rubbing my hands together for suggesting that monsters should enjoy creative builds as well?
Because the wording in your post gave me the impression that you had the attitude something like, "Going to optimize in my campaign? OK - you asked for it."
If that's not the case, then my apologies.
I don't think there is anything wrong with optimizing NPC's to keep them challenging to PC's levels of optimization. That's good DMing.
I don't think a character has to squeeze every drop of rules permitted damage (especially if it sometimes defies my definition of common sense) in order to defeat monsters. Instead I think that a party that shows good teamwork can have a rewarding and fun experience together. In fact characters that single handedly slay the opponents leave me looking for other tables in future settings.
I don't think optimizing means that teamwork becomes obsolete. In fact, I'm quite certain it doesn't.
I really don't think giving the player the ability to use his lance with two hands is going to create that problem.
It amazes me how everyone's sidestepping the issue of the gigantic downside to the mounted lance charge:
Being mounted!The Fighter1/Barbarian 1 in the above example is sitting on a generic warhorse most likely, which has ~20hp, very poor AC, and very poor saves.
Get someone to cast Web or Entangle and that scary 40+dmg hit never happens. If a raging barbarian on a horse manages to surprise the party and get you before you act, then your party deserves whatever happens to them.Whoever the character is, they're limited much more than a standard character in terms of movement (straight lines, places a L size creature would fit, higher ceiling height required).
So yeah, I think allowing a 3rd level character to 1-shot someone when the opponent has so many ways to make the tactic used non-viable isn't unfair. It's no worse than casting sleep on low will save enemies with a good casting stat and spell focus.
But Ben, in the low level example you won't have web available (although an entangle would be a life saver) and said NPC could easily be set up to surprise the party (hidden, out of sight, etc). And at higher level there would only be more npcs to contend with. Also, you are falling back on magic, which some have argued is already overpowered.
Interesting that a thread about such a mundane point has spiralled on for so long, isn't it?
No, really. :)
The orginal point (mounted lancing) has segued into a wider discussion of rules vs realism. Gamism vs Simulationism, if you like, or just good old rules and reality if the terms seem clumsy (which they do to me).
In defense of the Reality Brigade, I'll say this: there are two versions of The World's Favourite RPG currently out on the stalls, and one of them has its colours (in this regard) firmly nailed to the mast. 4E is (IMO) very much rules at the expense of reality. Gamers who seek the inverse are naturally going to be attracted to Pathfinder. Their place on these boards is natural and understandable.
However, there are degrees and extremes. Personally, I like my drink well stirred, with a healthy dose of reality cut by clear rules, those rules being understood by both DM and players ahead of time. Personally, that's one of the reasons I'm attracted to Pathfinder: I find the balance of simulation and rules in The Other Game not to my taste. Pathfinder offers balance.
However, also not to my personal taste is the lurch towards realism over rules supported by some posters in this thread (and in a couple of others recently). To me, that's not what Pathfinder is about. Pathfinder is a fantasy game, with a simulationist element, but with the same strong, clear rules structure that has served the game well over several incarnations.
Back to lancing:
The accusations of "cheesiness", of "milking the rules" - made many times in this thread - are simply not warranted. I do feel it often comes down to people simply not knowing the game, not playing at the sharp end, and being surprised by what is possible. The mounted lance vs scimitar crit comparison in recent posts is a perfect example. Any minute now, someone sensible is going to show exactly how much more powerful (in pure damage terms) a high crit weapon can be than a mounted charge. It is. So are lots of others things - not least the vast capabilities of spellcasters to take out foes without ever having to take recourse to the (greatly inefficient) offense of direct damage.
In other words, the mounted lance charge is weak cheese. I'm sorry to put it bluntly, but if you think a mounted lancer is a potent dude, you need to take another look at the game. "Cheese" is no kind of argument, because mounted lancing - even dual-wielding mounted lancing - barely registers on the Moh Scale of Cheesiness. It's burger-bar chedder, at most, which on this Moh-Cheese scale is the equivalent of talc.
Accept that, and what remains is the debate over realism. That's a much fairer debate. Me, I wouldn't allow a dual-lancer. Visually, imaginatively, I find that a bit much. But this has nothing to do with "cheese", and nothing to do with whether it's RAW or not. The good argument here - the strong one - is about rules vs reality, pure and simple.
This is relevant though: bolstering realism always weakens classes with mundane attacks and defenses. It never weakens casters. Casters are already the top tier classes. Shift the balance in your game too far in the direction of realism, and you end up with a gross imbalance: the casters - already the most powerful classes - become more powerful still; and the fighters and their kin become weaker than they already are. That's majorly bad news, because players should feel able to play any class without having to accept a disadvantage in power compared to their peers.
That is why I feel that urging too much realism is a bad idea. It feels right in simulationist terms, but in game terms it's a disaster - because Pathfinder is a fantasy game. Treat the mundane classes realistically, and the magical classes not, and you're excluding half the classes from the fantasy.
Who needs web? Caltrops work.
So let me ask those who feel realism has no place in Pathfinder this... is there -any- point that you feel realism should be taken into consideration, or should we just say "screw it" and allow everything and everything the rules permit?
Despite what you may think, I'm not a "realism nazi" in my games... but certain things just stretch the bounds of implausibility to me and so I make a call in favor of realism. Do I ever rule against realism? Most certainly. As others have said, this is a fantasy game. The most glaring example of where I've ruled in favor of realism has been in regards to oversized weapons in tight confines, as well as the often overlooked aspect of "where are you putting that 12 foot long greatsword? Wouldn't it drag along the ground everywhere you go?" You want my real opinion of what a large sized greatsword wielder would look like? Think Pyramid Head from the Silent Hill games... immensely strong but still having to drag that enormous blade around behind him and awkwardly swinging it in front of him.
I would imagine a Colossal Greatsword wielder would look like just about any sword carrying Warhammer mini ;)
Treeant wrote
"They were taken far on purpose to prove a point. A player wants to use his lance two handed. Yes, that will increase his damage, but it's hardly a game breaker."
I can agree that is not as bad as some of the other examples I saw from other posters, such as dual wielding lances, but I still believe it is not consistent with the description of two weapon wielding.
"any NPC with a lance can wield it two handed. It's not a measure of the build - it just requires using your other hand to hold the lance."
Because the rule says "can" instead of "must" which was unfortunate. The letter of the rule supports you, but it doesn't satisfy my understanding of two weapon wielding or of lances. Besides lances already give you the bonus multiplier. Why give it more? So no go for me on both counts.
"Not sure what all this about Large Greatswords is about. Are they that much better than a regular greatsword? I didn't think they were.
Wands? I'm not sure what's wrong with them."
Just some other examples mentioned earlier during the thread showing how you can get more bang out of your character while still technically abiding by the rules. But the 1x vs 1.5 is not nearly as egregious a case.
"For what it's worth - I agree that using "tricks" to make your character more powerful by using the rules in a way they clearly weren't intended is not behavior to be encouraged. "
Agreed!
"However, I really don't think the Lance thing is abusive."
Not as abusive, but still out of bounds to me.
So let me ask those who feel realism has no place in Pathfinder this... is there -any- point that you feel realism should be taken into consideration, or should we just say "screw it" and allow everything and everything the rules permit?
Despite what you may think, I'm not a "realism nazi" in my games... but certain things just stretch the bounds of implausibility to me and so I make a call in favor of realism. Do I ever rule against realism? Most certainly. As others have said, this is a fantasy game. The most glaring example of where I've ruled in favor of realism has been in regards to oversized weapons in tight confines, as well as the often overlooked aspect of "where are you putting that 12 foot long greatsword? Wouldn't it drag along the ground everywhere you go?" You want my real opinion of what a large sized greatsword wielder would look like? Think Pyramid Head from the Silent Hill games... immensely strong but still having to drag that enormous blade around behind him and awkwardly swinging it in front of him.
I think that is a group decision, but when you start to change rules balance should be carefully considered. As an example I was hit by a fireball spell once, and told my invisibility was no longer effective since the smoke from my clothes could be traced to me. The DM effectively gave a fireball the added ability of purge invisibility. Doing AoE damage and negating concealment of any sort is beyond the range of anything the fireball spell was intended to do.
There are things that irk me, but I let them go since it really would not affect game balance, and only leads to the players having less fun. We as gamers are restricted by the laws of physics and reality enough in real life. If I am in a game I want to do the impossible, or there is really no reason for me to play.
Who needs web? Caltrops work.
Ahh, but deploying them takes time.
Who needs web? Caltrops work.Ahh, but deploying them takes time.
No more than a standard action.
Agree with you that there is more going on in this argument than lancing. I am blessed to play with a group that has 5 members who can and have DM'ed frequently. I think this makes it easier for us to lean more to the reality side of the equation since we have all been there as DM's and players. My fantastic group is highly tuned in to rules lawyering, as well as being very knowledgeable about character builds, encounter levels, feats, and everything D + D. I wonder if other groups can confirm whether more DM's in a home group equates to stricter rules interpretation? Or maybe my group just gravitated towards others with a similar point of view.
So let me ask those who feel realism has no place in Pathfinder this... is there -any- point that you feel realism should be taken into consideration, or should we just say "screw it" and allow everything and everything the rules permit?
Despite what you may think, I'm not a "realism nazi" in my games... but certain things just stretch the bounds of implausibility to me and so I make a call in favor of realism. Do I ever rule against realism? Most certainly. As others have said, this is a fantasy game. The most glaring example of where I've ruled in favor of realism has been in regards to oversized weapons in tight confines, as well as the often overlooked aspect of "where are you putting that 12 foot long greatsword? Wouldn't it drag along the ground everywhere you go?" You want my real opinion of what a large sized greatsword wielder would look like? Think Pyramid Head from the Silent Hill games... immensely strong but still having to drag that enormous blade around behind him and awkwardly swinging it in front of him.
Dork Lord -
Yes, I think realism should be taken into consideration. I can't speak for others posters, but I suspect that if you get other answers (you've already had a couple) you'll find that the great majority of people here feel that too.
So the issue is then one of balance. I'm not suggesting you're a "realism Nazi". I would say (as has already been said) that the rules system needs to mesh well as a whole...and the trouble with injecting Xtreme realism is that it tends to affect the mundane classes a great deal more than the magical ones. It tips class balance the wrong way.
That doesn't mean I want no realism, or even minimal realism. I'm a greedy gamer. I want realism aplenty - but I want it to work in a fantasy game environment. It's a tricky thing to get right, for sure.
Agree with you that there is more going on in this argument than lancing. I am blessed to play with a group that has 5 members who can and have DM'ed frequently. I think this makes it easier for us to lean more to the reality side of the equation since we have all been there as DM's and players. My fantastic group is highly tuned in to rules lawyering, as well as being very knowledgeable about character builds, encounter levels, feats, and everything D + D. I wonder if other groups can confirm whether more DM's in a home group equates to stricter rules interpretation? Or maybe my group just gravitated towards others with a similar point of view.
We have a DM-centric group, but we care more about fun, and balance than realism. I think you will find a way to swing a large weapon in a hallway before you can defeat half the monsters in D&D with a sword.
I think each group just has its own dynamic.
Honestly, I think it depends on the way he's using both hands.
Follow me a second. Sit yourself down, this is hard to describe via text. Sit down, now hold your right hand next to you like you were holding a lance. Your hand should be curled as if holding a straight rod (which is what you'd be doing) with the thumb pointing toward the ground, and the imaginary 'pole' parallel to your right leg.
Now, take your left hand, and pretend you are pushing down on the pole. Not gripping the pole the same as with the right hand, instead, you are using your left hand to steady it. This is not you leaning far out to the right, you are still sitting with your back perfectly straight. You have a strong grip on the lance with your right hand, and you are gripping the shaft with the left hand. Both thumbs should be pointing toward the ground, in fact, your two hands should be mirror images of each other, almost.
I believe this is the way a lance would be used two-handed on horseback. And it would allow much more strength to be used. The left hand would be adding because the lance is more stable. Remember, it's not your actual str from pushing the lance, it's how much of your str can be applied to keeping the lance firm and on target to allow your mounts strength and mass to be transferred down the shaft.
I would require the DC 5 ride check. This is no more complicated than using a shield and lance, and no more unbalancing on the rider.
MDT has it right here.
More importantly, there were real world horsemen that wielded cavalry hammers as well (2 handed) and you can wield a greatsword two handed from horseback, so what possible reason could you have to be worried about the damage from a lance? It's a one turn advantage IF they are on horseback IF they get initiative IF the situation allows for it. In comparison I give you Searing Light. Crazy range, touch attack, multiple D8's for damage and one of the LESSER attack spells. The lance thing is no biggie, really.
So let me ask those who feel realism has no place in Pathfinder this... is there -any- point that you feel realism should be taken into consideration, or should we just say "screw it" and allow everything and everything the rules permit?
Despite what you may think, I'm not a "realism nazi" in my games... but certain things just stretch the bounds of implausibility to me and so I make a call in favor of realism. Do I ever rule against realism? Most certainly. As others have said, this is a fantasy game. The most glaring example of where I've ruled in favor of realism has been in regards to oversized weapons in tight confines, as well as the often overlooked aspect of "where are you putting that 12 foot long greatsword? Wouldn't it drag along the ground everywhere you go?" You want my real opinion of what a large sized greatsword wielder would look like? Think Pyramid Head from the Silent Hill games... immensely strong but still having to drag that enormous blade around behind him and awkwardly swinging it in front of him.
I think that is a group decision, but when you start to change rules balance should be carefully considered. As an example I was hit by a fireball spell once, and told my invisibility was no longer effective since the smoke from my clothes could be traced to me. The DM effectively gave a fireball the added ability of purge invisibility. Doing AoE damage and negating concealment of any sort is beyond the range of anything the fireball spell was intended to do.
There are things that irk me, but I let them go since it really would not affect game balance, and only leads to the players having less fun. We as gamers are restricted by the laws of physics and reality enough in real life. If I am in a game I want to do the impossible, or there is really no reason for me to play.
I don't know, a fireball would leave you smoking (and technically you should roll a save for everything you're wearing to catch on fire...right?) that seems like a bad example. I wouldn't say you were immediately visible or anything, but you wouldn't be nearly as invisible as you were, especially if anything on you was on fire.
From page 141,
"Two handed; Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon."
Why? Well it just doesn't say. Why should a two handed swing cause 1.5 times more strength damage than one handed? I play some golf every now and again, and sometimes it is beneficial to train by swinging at the ball with only one arm. And you know what, the ball just doesn't seem to go as far versus when I swing with both arms :) So using this comparison I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that the authors believed that swinging/thrusting brings more strength into the equation. But no such swinging or thrusting goes on when you charge with a lance, in my opinion. Instead you couch the lance under your arm and brace it against your shoulder and use your mount's strength to do your work. In fact you get double damage everytime you make a mounted charge with a lance (x3 with spirited charge). But because the authors unfortunately used the word "can" instead of "must" then it would appear legal to further increase the damage as if the wielder were swingig/thrusting the lance, which he is not.
And that is why a lance should not also get 1.5 strength bonus on top of the already 2x bonus for using a lance in a mounted charge.
You are aware that thrusting weaponry benefits GREATLY from the increased striking power of a second hand? The Estoc, a German two handed thrusting sword (and the ancestor of the Epee) used precisely the type of force you're denouncing to penetrate full plate?
I don't know, a fireball would leave you smoking (and technically you should roll a save for everything you're wearing to catch on fire...right?)...So let me ask those who feel realism has no place in Pathfinder this... is there -any- point that you feel realism should be taken into consideration, or should we just say "screw it" and allow everything and everything the rules permit?
Despite what you may think, I'm not a "realism nazi" in my games... but certain things just stretch the bounds of implausibility to me and so I make a call in favor of realism. Do I ever rule against realism? Most certainly. As others have said, this is a fantasy game. The most glaring example of where I've ruled in favor of realism has been in regards to oversized weapons in tight confines, as well as the often overlooked aspect of "where are you putting that 12 foot long greatsword? Wouldn't it drag along the ground everywhere you go?" You want my real opinion of what a large sized greatsword wielder would look like? Think Pyramid Head from the Silent Hill games... immensely strong but still having to drag that enormous blade around behind him and awkwardly swinging it in front of him.
I think that is a group decision, but when you start to change rules balance should be carefully considered. As an example I was hit by a fireball spell once, and told my invisibility was no longer effective since the smoke from my clothes could be traced to me. The DM effectively gave a fireball the added ability of purge invisibility. Doing AoE damage and negating concealment of any sort is beyond the range of anything the fireball spell was intended to do.
There are things that irk me, but I let them go since it really would not affect game balance, and only leads to the players having less fun. We as gamers are restricted by the laws of physics and reality enough in real life. If I am in a game I want to do the impossible, or there is really no reason for me to play.
My point was that "realism" gave a 3rd level spell a higher level affect and such things should be watched carefully. If an affect is going to be made considerably weaker or stronger it should be adjusted accordingly.
PS: I was wearing armor.
My point was that "realism" gave a 3rd level spell a higher level affect and such things should be watched carefully. If an affect is going to be made considerably weaker or stronger it should be adjusted accordingly.
Not sure if it is a call I would have made, but as a player and a GM I would be ok with such a call, It's no worse then throwing flour on the floor and seeing your tracks. I am guessing ya had cloths on under the armor, Gods I hope so naked drawves happened way to much in my STAP game for my comfort
My point was that "realism" gave a 3rd level spell a higher level affect and such things should be watched carefully. If an affect is going to be made considerably weaker or stronger it should be adjusted accordingly.
Not sure if it is a call I would have made, but as a player and a GM I would be ok with such a call, It's no worse then throwing flour on the floor and seeing your tracks. I am guessing ya had cloths on under the armor, Gods I hope so naked drawves happened way to much in my STAP game for my comfort
I want to hear the story, and I don't at the same time.
I was hit by a fireball spell once
And thus came your avatar ;)
I was hit by a fireball spell onceAnd thus came your avatar ;)
The way you quoted that sounds like the beginning of a story.
On an unrelated note: I wish there was a way to get custom avatars on here, maybe not for everyone, but maybe for employees or winners of the RPG Superstar contest.
I was hit by a fireball spell onceAnd thus came your avatar ;)The way you quoted that sounds like the beginning of a story.
On an unrelated note: I wish there was a way to get custom avatars on here, maybe not for everyone, but maybe for employees or winners of the RPG Superstar contest.
Or for me ;)
I don't mind my avatar, it unfortunately looks a bit like me. I just don't like that I'm not the only one with it.
The way you quoted that sounds like the beginning of a story.
On an unrelated note: I wish there was a way to get custom avatars on here, maybe not for everyone, but maybe for employees or winners of the RPG Superstar contest.
Some do have them, Sebastian has for for instance. But I think not allow you to load pics has something to do with site security. Which as we all know is a big issue for paizo
Some do have them, Sebastian has for for instance. But I think not allow you to load pics has something to do with site security. Which as we all know is a big issue for paizoThe way you quoted that sounds like the beginning of a story.
On an unrelated note: I wish there was a way to get custom avatars on here, maybe not for everyone, but maybe for employees or winners of the RPG Superstar contest.
How did he do that?
Gary put it in as a joke. He has a bella sara avatar he can not change. Kobold cleaver also has a one of a kind little blue when for when he tries and gets around the smurf filter. heh Gary also would not allow him to change that one for a while
You don't want to know ;) lmaoHow did he do that?Some do have them, Sebastian has for for instance. But I think not allow you to load pics has something to do with site security. Which as we all know is a big issue for paizoThe way you quoted that sounds like the beginning of a story.
On an unrelated note: I wish there was a way to get custom avatars on here, maybe not for everyone, but maybe for employees or winners of the RPG Superstar contest.
NOW I don't want to know...but my poor brain keeps coming up with scenarios anyways. MAKE IT STOP!
Nathan wrote; "You are aware that thrusting weaponry benefits GREATLY from the increased striking power of a second hand? The Estoc, a German two handed thrusting sword (and the ancestor of the Epee) used precisely the type of force you're denouncing to penetrate full plate?"
But I am not denouncing thrusting power. I wrote; "...that swinging/thrusting weapons brings more strength into the equation." But I don't believe that thrusting occurs by the player during a mounted charge with a lance. Instead he plants the lance (couching, I think its called) securely under arm and against shoulder and he lets the mount provide the thrust, hence the 2x multiplier on damage.
"I believe this is the way a lance would be used two-handed on horseback. And it would allow much more strength to be used. The left hand would be adding because the lance is more stable. Remember, it's not your actual str from pushing the lance, it's how much of your str can be applied to keeping the lance firm and on target to allow your mounts strength and mass to be transferred down the shaft."
But this is not swinging or thrusting so why 1.5x?
Nathan said;
MDT has it right here.
More importantly, there were real world horsemen that wielded cavalry hammers as well (2 handed) and you can wield a greatsword two handed from horseback, so what possible reason could you have to be worried about the damage from a lance? It's a one turn advantage IF they are on horseback IF they get initiative IF the situation allows for it. In comparison I give you Searing Light. Crazy range, touch attack, multiple D8's for damage and one of the LESSER attack spells. The lance thing is no biggie, really.
And so they did, but do they get 2x for doing so in Pathfinder? Nope, just 1.5x. But from your opinion, as well as others the cavalry hammer gets 1.5x from horseback, but the lance gets 1.5x and 2x. And ultimately it is neither being swung nor thrust by the character so again why the 1.5x str modifier for wielding it two handed when said character is actually using it one handed. And steadying it with the second hand still does not seem to be swinging it nor thrusting it.
A barbarian 1/fighter 1 on a horse is a CR 3 opponent. Remember that a combat-trained horse is a CR 1 opponent by itself.
I just played an apl 1-2 mod during which we had an encounter with a 3rd level caster plus its CR 1 minion. So CR 3 encounter are in apl 1-2 mods.
|
I just played an apl 1-2 mod during which we had an encounter with a 3rd level caster plus its CR 1 minion. So CR 3 encounter are in apl 1-2 mods.You played in an APL mod where someone isn't very good at calculating CR.
What bothers me in your posts is that you seem to take the letter of the rules as god sends. The CR is badly computed, so what ? Can't it be fun to play the encounter yet ? Maybe not for you but for somebody else ? D&D has been here for nearly 40 years now, and CRs have been around only ten or so. Do we need them so badly ?
In the same way you seem to say that a fighter charging with ONE lance is not fun ... Fun is not measured just by how much damage you are doing (even if it helps, I grant).
I understand you like the "super-powered" game, which is not my cup of tea. You have to accept that not everybody is going to like the same things as you.
No disrespect intended.
When you are talking about the rules and only the rules, then yes, it's perfectly reasonable to take the rules as written. A level 1 or 2 PC-classed character on a horse is a CR 3 challenge, because a) the rules as written flat out come out and say that and b) charges and mounted archery are both Really Nasty. Saying "Oh, charging as an NPC is overpowered" is ridiculous because the rules already account for that power.Don't say the rules are broken just because someone didn't know how to properly apply them. Don't try and fix with houserules things that work just fine as written.
I am creating a new verb.
Stereofm, you've been MiBed.
|
Necro-posting here because the dead horse on which the thread was charging with a lance has been thoroughly beaten already, so... rather than start a new thread and pound the same ground....
I'm creating a Halfling Cavalier for our upcoming "Legacy of Fire" campaign. Always loved the Halfling Outrider class, but couldn't see playing one until the Cavalier came along. Now, in Iomedae's name, justice rides the sands!
On a goat.
So, the question(s). The wording for the lance seems to indicate that it's a 2-handed weapon. Period. While the wielder is mounted, it can be used in one hand. But it's still a 2-handed weapon. Shouldn't it be giving 1.5 damage on a hit anyways, as its weapon type has not changed? (I think that was noted back on Page 1.)
So, while mounted, by rules, looks like my little guy should be able to carry a shield in his other hand, and direct the mount with a relatively simple ride check. I think the check DC in this case--especially charging with a lance--might be too low, but nothing else seems wonky. Am I missing a (non-house) rule here?
Yes, pretty nasty damage--on a hit--but as was pointed out, this isn't something that can be done every turn or even most turns, even with significant Feat investment. And then most riders will be in range for a counterattack, without the usual front-liner Feats to weather the storm as well.