EDIT: Mixed 6 pages of discussion [blush]
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.)
You're pretty much dead-on there. Evidently no one involved in this discussion has ever watched a real joust. As an armourer, I work with both show and competition jousters on occasion, so I kind of wish I'd been here for the discussion at the time, since it probably could have been worked out in less pages. When riding at your opponent with a lance, you "couch" it, which is basically tucking it under your arm (and in some cases, setting it into a purpose made cradle attached to your armour). When couched, your underarm (or the cradle) in this case is effectively acting as a second hand bracing the rear of the lance.
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?
You haven't missed a thing. In fact, you seem to have seen what many others missed... which is that the RAW and RAI do not conflict at all. It's just that no one on either side of the argument understood how a lance works in real life well enough to quell the argument.
The DC for the ride check isn't really too low. Technically, when attacking with a lance, you're not even doing all the steering with your knees. You'd be holding your mount's reigns with your shield side hand (any shield usable while mounted is both strapped to the arm as well as having a handle to brace & adjust angle with, giving you enough use of the reigns to steer the mount) with the horse being trained to react to even the most minute movement of the reigns. As a GM, I would consider requiring a ride check at a higher DC to remain mounted following a charge depending on the size of the target though.
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.
Yeah it's nasty... but again, that fits in with the real world just fine. The couched lance was a nasty weapon, that's why they were used pretty successfully until WWI (and in some theaters, they saw successful use throughout WWI as well.)
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.)You're pretty much dead-on there. Evidently no one involved in this discussion has ever watched a real joust. As an armourer, I work with both show and competition jousters on occasion, so I kind of wish I'd been here for the discussion at the time, since it probably could have been worked out in less pages. When riding at your opponent with a lance, you "couch" it, which is basically tucking it under your arm (and in some cases, setting it into a purpose made cradle attached to your armour). When couched, your underarm (or the cradle) in this case is effectively acting as a second hand bracing the rear of the lance.
Actually he is not dead on. You don't get extra damage for using a two hand weapon. You get extra damage for using a weapon in two hands. The two are not synonymous. A long sword which can be wielded in one or two hands is an example of this. If a human used a greatsword for a halfing in one hand it would also not get 1.5 the strength mod.
Edit:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
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.
As you can see the intent is for the two hands to be the factor, not the weapon itself.
Actually he is not dead on. You don't get extra damage for using a two hand weapon. You get extra damage for using a weapon in two hands. The two are not synonymous. A long sword which can be wielded in one or two hands is an example of this. If a human used a greatsword for a halfing in one hand it would also not get 1.5 the strength mod.Edit:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.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.
As you can see the intent is for the two hands to be factor, not the weapon itself.
Your example fails to take into account the entry for weapon size where it states:
"The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all."
That clearly says that the greatsword in your example would be downgraded to a one handed weapon in the hands of a medium size creature, and yet the designation for the lance remains unchanged when used one handed while mounted.
Secondly, my comment could easily have read "You're dead on ABOUT LANCES" if one needs a quantifier to prevent this sort of response. The lance is an awkward weapon for the whole one-handed/two-handed issue anyway because, as I said earlier on, it's technically not being used one handed since the underarm or cradle is acting as the second hand for purposes of control and leverage.
For everyone in the thread who complained about "realism" of using a lance two-handed, it is completely realisitic. That is the fashion lances were used from Alexander the Great on up to the Middle Ages.
Sorry if this was already mentioned, but I didn't read through all 7 pages.
Yeah this was brought up, however those "lances" were not the lances of pathfinder or ones knights used, but really more like a longspear and not made for a full on knightly charge
The lances in the game are modeled after the knights heavy lance, not the same thing at all, kinda like saying a .22 and an assault rifle are the same thing.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
::runs screaming from thread::
For everyone in the thread who complained about "realism" of using a lance two-handed, it is completely realisitic. That is the fashion lances were used from Alexander the Great on up to the Middle Ages.
Sorry if this was already mentioned, but I didn't read through all 7 pages.
True , though I generally think of those as being spears since they weren't designed to be couched the way later period lances were. The art in the rulebook even shows a later period lance rather than one that would have been commonly used the way you refer to. And no, I didn't see it mentioned when I read the thread, buy it got pretty silly and I started skimming about halfway through.
EDIT: Seeker beat me to it, angry teething daughter makes timely posts impossible. And evidently I was wrong about it not being mentioned... that's what I get for skimming.
I did post some niffty pic's of "lances" being used that way, but yeah they were spears and not what folks think of when ya say lance{ The knights lance}. even though the word lance has been used to cover a large category of spear like weapons, much as sword has for sharp lengths of metal used to stab folks
And heh, teething youngin good luck with that :)
Actually he is not dead on. You don't get extra damage for using a two hand weapon. You get extra damage for using a weapon in two hands. The two are not synonymous. A long sword which can be wielded in one or two hands is an example of this. If a human used a greatsword for a halfing in one hand it would also not get 1.5 the strength mod.Edit:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.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.
As you can see the intent is for the two hands to be factor, not the weapon itself.
Your example fails to take into account the entry for weapon size where it states:
"The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all."
That clearly says that the greatsword in your example would be downgraded to a one handed weapon in the hands of a medium size creature, and yet the designation for the lance remains unchanged when used one handed while mounted.
Secondly, my comment could easily have read "You're dead on ABOUT...
I was attacked by the post eraser so I will try to shorten the post.
I don't think its a coincidence that weapons held in both hands get the x 1.5 strength bonus. Another thing is that monkey grip(3.5 feat), and powerful build(racial trait)would allow have still kept the damage at x1, same as the lance.
As you can see the intent is for the two hands to be...Actually it's not.
You can wield a light weapon in two hands and get.. absolutely nothing special for it.
You are confusing a special rule for one-handed weapons that lets them deal extra damage with the special rule for the two-handed weapon that is the lance.
A lance always does 1.5x STR damage. It is a two-handed weapon.
-James
That is because the rules specifically state the weapon has to be one-handed or two handed to get the bonus. Other than the light weapons would get it too. It would look funny attacking with a dagger two-handed though.
So what is your call on monkey grip and powerful build?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
You can list me among the camp that agrees with James et al. A lance is a "two-handed weapon" that under special circumstances may be effectively wielded in one hand, but it is stil a "two-handed weapon" by the rules, and holding it with two hands (aside from being ahistoric) provides no additional benefit.
(This isn't the way I run it in my home campaign*, but it is the way I understand Jason to have written the Pathfinder rules.)
I don't expect this to sway anybody from the other camp, and if you want to run your PF RPG campaign differently, I'll still roll up a character at your table.
So what is your call on monkey grip and powerful build?
They're not part of the Pathfinder rules system. Anybody who seriously tries to reconcile Jason's ruleset to all the D&D 3.5 splatbooks is in for a frustrating time.
I would have thought that the wackiness of combining a mounted lance charge with cleave would have come up by now.
*
So what is your call on monkey grip and powerful build?They're not part of the Pathfinder rules system. Anybody who seriously tries to reconcile Jason's ruleset to all the D&D 3.5 splatbooks is in for a frustrating time.
True, but it is backwards compatible, and the same rules existed in 3.5.* So if however they work in 3.5 is how they would work here, unless the weapons rules change.
*I am referring to the one-handed vs two-handed attacks.
That is because the rules specifically state the weapon has to be one-handed or two handed to get the bonus. Other than the light weapons would get it too. It would look funny attacking with a dagger two-handed though.
So what is your call on monkey grip and powerful build?
You'll have to quote monkey grip as that feat's changed over different incarnations.
Powerful build doesn't change the type of the weapon, just the size category of the weapon you can use without penalty if I recall correctly.
-James
By your interpretation of the rules the wpn type would change. It basically makes a two-handed weapon into one handed one. I will look for a better example.
|
Thanks for the replies, all. It'll ultimately be my DM's call, and I'll refer him here to check out your thoughts.
First readings of the Cavalier didn't really grab me. Working up the character as he might advance in levels--I like to have some idea of how my characters might grow for purposes of qualifying for possible Feats and prestige classes, but don't think I've ever fully stuck to a "plan"--I'm finding I really love it, and am excited to bring him to life.
By your interpretation of the rules the wpn type would change. It basically makes a two-handed weapon into one handed one. I will look for a better example.
I don't think so. Perhaps you'd quote & give which source you're taking monkey grip from?
-James
I misread it. It just allows you to wield the weapon as though you are a category size larger.
Benefit:You can use melee weapons one size category larger than you are with -2 penalty.....For instance a Large longsword...is considered a two-handed weapon for medium sized creature that does not have this feat. For a medium creature with this feat it is still considered a two-handed weapon.
It goes on to say you can wield a large light weapon as a light weapon, and a large two-handed weapon in two hands.
I know there are some gauntlets in the MiC that have a similar affect. I will see if I can find them.
PS: I did find an epic feat called wield oversized weapon that reduces the effort put into wielding the weapon. page 153 or 154 CW.
Just to clarify our opposing points you think the weapon type determines the extra damage, and I think how it is wielded determines the extra damage.
I'm so proud of you all. Arguing over nothing for seven pages without my help. :)
There are the kinds of these we do, when we dont have anything else to do with our time. :)
This thread, and the recent arhery threat makes me wonder, why people feel such all-encompassing hate towards fighting characters, such burning desire to not let them be relevant or do something powerful in any way, shape or form.
This thread, and the recent arhery threat makes me wonder, why people feel such all-encompassing hate towards fighting characters, such burning desire to not let them be relevant or do something powerful in any way, shape or form.
This has nothing to do with hating fighters. It is just rules interpretation. What recent archery thread to you speak of by the way?
This thread, and the recent arhery threat makes me wonder, why people feel such all-encompassing hate towards fighting characters, such burning desire to not let them be relevant or do something powerful in any way, shape or form.This has nothing to do with hating fighters. It is just rules interpretation. What recent archery thread to you speak of by the way?
This one
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/paladinSmiteEvilTooPowerfulIt started with Smite, but was quickly derailed discussing archer Paladins and archery in general.
And yes, insisting that abilities of fighting classes should remain "realistic" is hating fighting classes. Insisting that rules that accidentally allow fighting classes to do something powerful (in a limited set of circumstances) must be changed is doubly hating them.
Why it is so? Because fighting classes are supposed to go on adventures with people whose schtick is "making reality their b****". Not to fight them when they are BBEGs beatable only by MacGuffins or, maybe, cunning, not to interact with them as with Better Than You mentors, to actually work with them as equals. Insistence that, despite such premise, fighting types must be grounded in reality (at least past about level 5) is ridiculous and can only end in Fighters Not Having Nice Things.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Sorry, FatR, but the tired incendiary jingo you've borrowed ("hate", "can't have nice things") doesn't apply here.
We're not talking about fighters. We're talking about a melee attack form, available to clerics, inquisitors, barbarians, and anyone else. In this case, especially cavaliers. (Fighters have their own ways of breaking the laws of physics, in terms of feats which only they can pick up.)
And, if you'll note, the "realistic" side here (couching a lance in one arm provides 1.5 times the character's Strength bonus) is exactly the position that would favor the character.
Rather than trot out cliche slogans from last year's playtest, I invite you to engage in the conversation. If you don't think that a mounted lancer should receive 1.5 times her Strength bonus, what is your interpretation?
My personal house rule with lances is as follows:
In a charge the lance/spear is gripped under the arm leaving the off-hand for shield usage. The charger uses the mounts strength to calculate damage not the lance "wielder" as the momentum of charge is through the rider vis bracing and stirrips. Damage is 1.5.
When not charging the rider can either wield the lance/spear two-handed (gaining all benefits) using his strength to calculate damage, etc. Or use it in one hand, etc. etc.
Duel wielding and such nonsense is not going to happen and I've also ruled 0 that cleave applies only to slashing weapons. I have a hard job visualising a spear sweeping through critters with a powerful blow.
I have a hard job visualising a spear sweeping through critters with a powerful blow.
Interesting. I don't. Sure you're not getting caught up on the title of the feat rather than the effect? Impaling two enemies at the same time or thrusting the spear into one and quickly withdrawing it to stab another are two visualizations that easily spring to mind. I'm sure there are quite a few examples in movies like 300. Also, spear fighting seems really phallic, no?
Zo
slashing only makes little sense to me too. After all Great Club, or morning star both make sense with cleave too -- In addition to what DigMarx said.
Sorry, FatR, but the tired incendiary jingo you've borrowed ("hate", "can't have nice things") doesn't apply here.
We're not talking about fighters. We're talking about a melee attack form, available to clerics, inquisitors, barbarians, and anyone else.
What part of the words "fighting classes" you've failed to understand?
And clerics generally don't have extra feats for lancing. But they don't really need to ubercharge, too.
In this case, especially cavaliers. (Fighters have their own ways of breaking the laws of physics, in terms of feats which only they can pick up.)
Okay. Speaking of basic requirements for participating in high-level adventures, what feat allows fighters to fly? To teleport? Or, turning to fightery stuff, to ignore DR, or to detect invisible enemies, or to stop high-level critters from killing someone? Or to make a g$@~$*n full attack after moving, after all?
And, if you'll note, the "realistic" side here (couching a lance in one arm provides 1.5 times the character's Strength bonus) is exactly the position that would favor the character.
Except, that's not what proponents of "realism" argued for before I became too tired to read.
If you don't think that a mounted lancer should receive 1.5 times her Strength bonus, what is your interpretation?
My interpretation is "stop strawmanning".
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
What part of the words "fighting classes" you've failed to understand?
You've gone from spouting catchphrases to being rude. Please back up and try again, with the civility that this thread has enjoyed, even in the heat of vigorous debate.
And, if you'll note, the "realistic" side here (couching a lance in one arm provides 1.5 times the character's Strength bonus) is exactly the position that would favor the character.
Except, that's not what proponents of "realism" argued for before I became too tired to read.
Apology accepted. I invite you to read through the thread, and then try again. I'd bet you have something interesting to add, if you can summon up the energy to read and understand the discussion.
To address the issue of "fighting classes", Pathfinder has blurred the border, particularly with the base classes in the Advanced Players Guide. Is the Summoner a "fighting class"? With armor, a Medium BAB, and the best mount in the entire game, she's certainly a candidate for mounted attacks. A discussion of how much damage a lance does is germane to all characters.
You're looking for your favorite fight, and it isn't going on here.
Fighters have their own ways of breaking the laws of physics, in terms of feats which only they can pick up.
Okay. Speaking of basic requirements for participating in high-level adventures, what feat allows fighters to fly? To teleport? Or, turning to fightery stuff, to ignore DR, or to detect invisible enemies, or to stop high-level critters from killing someone? Or to make a g~~+!+n full attack after moving, after all?
Seriously? You think this discussion is about teleporting fighters?? About full-attack after a move action?
I'm putting this in a spoiler because I don't want to derail this thread any more than necessary.
The high-level fighter handles all those things, the same way a mid-level sorcerer handles the eighth encounter of the day, a bard handles a silence effect, or a low-level witch handles a long underwater encounter: magic items and feats.
For that matter, this discussion doesn't relate to high-level play at all. We're talking about whether a mounted combattant adds half-again her strength to a lance attack. By 14th level, the party's lance is probably doing +5d6 on its own, and it doesn't make any sense to haggle over whether we should add 7 points of Strength bonus, or only 5.
Please, if you think there's fresh ground to cover in the problems your gaming group has with high-level fighters getting a chance to contribute to the party's success, find a thread about that topic, or make yet another new thread, and go to town.
If you don't think that a mounted lancer should receive 1.5 times her Strength bonus, what is your interpretation?
My interpretation is "stop strawmanning".
I repeat my question, expecting a better answer. Am I asking too much?
My own two cents on this issue is that I cannot visualise how a character can grip a lance with two hands and hold it appropiately on their horse (I know thats realism but how you attack with the lance is based on realism in the game). Its designed to nestle under the characters armpit while they hold it one handed...theres no room or way a character could somehow get another hand on it.
As for using two lances on a horse...while its virtually impossible based on realism, it might be possible in game though your only ever going to get away with this tactic outdoors where theres lots of room and a direct line to charge at your enemy with.
Last time someone tried this tactic one of the party spellcasters put down a Spike Stones spell which pretty much took this advantage away from the character. You could reasonably do the same thing with Entangle and so forth as well.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
... quickly derailed...
And yes, insisting that abilities of fighting classes should remain "realistic" is hating fighting classes. Insisting that rules that accidentally allow fighting classes to do something powerful (in a limited set of circumstances) must be changed is doubly hating them.
Why it is so? Because fighting classes are supposed to go on adventures with people whose schtick is "making reality their b****". Not to fight them when they are BBEGs beatable only by MacGuffins or, maybe, cunning, not to interact with them as with Better Than You mentors, to actually work with them as equals. Insistence that, despite such premise, fighting types must be grounded in reality (at least past about level 5) is ridiculous and can only end in Fighters Not Having Nice Things.
As you pointed out, there are other threads for that. Please don't make this into one of them. EDIT: Ninja'd by Chris Mortika.
FatR -- I share your fighter frustration... but, yeah, as Chris pointed out, a lance at 1d8+7 instead of 1d8+5 ain't going to fix anything that's wrong with them. Creating some vague semblance of parity among classes has got to start with something a lot bigger than lances; basic class design might be a good start.
A thought about lances:
I would compare them less to a single standard attack and more to what someone can do in a full attack action for purposes of "damage" balance.
After all charging (even when mounted) is a full round action, as such I would kind of expect that using a lance to charge on horse back would end up doing about the same range of damage as if the character had chosen a different style of combat and got a full attack action in -- otherwise why take this form of combat?
My game experience has been that someone charging with a lance in pathfinder is going to do about as much damage as if they had gone toe to toe in melee instead. The paladin in our friday game generally does as much damage on a charge as the fighter does simply standing and delivering instead (Now on a Smiting charge he does more of course but even there he's starting to lose some of the edge... and he has a 20 str to start with compared to the fighter's 14).
We have been having the lance used one handed do damage as a one handed weapon and when used two handed as a two handed weapon and we have *to date* allowed both options.
My own two cents on this issue is that I cannot visualise how a character can grip a lance with two hands and hold it appropiately on their horse (I know thats realism but how you attack with the lance is based on realism in the game). Its designed to nestle under the characters armpit while they hold it one handed...theres no room or way a character could somehow get another hand on it.
I wonder, do you apply the same reasoning to a longspear used from a mount? Is it possible to use a longspear from a mount in your estimation? What are the fundamental differences between using a longspear and a lance while not mounted and while mounted?
I wonder, do you apply the same reasoning to a longspear used from a mount? Is it possible to use a longspear from a mount in your estimation? What are the fundamental differences between using a longspear and a lance while not mounted and while mounted?
My own two cents on this issue is that I cannot visualise how a character can grip a lance with two hands and hold it appropiately on their horse (I know thats realism but how you attack with the lance is based on realism in the game). Its designed to nestle under the characters armpit while they hold it one handed...theres no room or way a character could somehow get another hand on it.
All in the type of lance. The lance in the book is a knights lance, which is not meant to be used on foot or with two hands. The other type of lances were more or less long spears and when used two handed could not pull a charge off but more a ride by stabbing for the most part.
So really if ya want that kind of lance use the long spear but it would not do the charging damage as it is not made for that kind of attack.
I wonder, do you apply the same reasoning to a longspear used from a mount? Is it possible to use a longspear from a mount in your estimation? What are the fundamental differences between using a longspear and a lance while not mounted and while mounted?
My own two cents on this issue is that I cannot visualise how a character can grip a lance with two hands and hold it appropiately on their horse (I know thats realism but how you attack with the lance is based on realism in the game). Its designed to nestle under the characters armpit while they hold it one handed...theres no room or way a character could somehow get another hand on it.All in the type of lance. The lance in the book is a knights lance, which is not meant to be used on foot or with two hands. The other type of lances were more or less long spears and when used two handed could not pull a charge off but more a ride by stabbing for the most part.
So really if ya want that kind of lance use the long spear but it would not do the charging damage as it is not made for that kind of attack.
So if I am interpreting your statement accurately, you are against the lance in the book being used when not mounted, is that correct?
A charging lance, damn right. A footmans lance no. They maybe stat wise the same thing but are not. All the folks wanting two handed lances need to really say longspear {same thing} Pathfinder as 3.5 before it uses the charging knights lance as the lance
The lance used by knights uses the lance stats, the "lance" used by footmen {basically a long spear] would indeed use the longspear as would any used two-handed from a mount as they were not used for the knights charge..no strips at that time either if I recall and the strip was essential to evolving the lance past a spear
So yes the lance from the book is not to be used on foot it's a horse lance or heavy lance not a footmans lance/longspear
Regarding charging with a lance: the "charge" is the mount's move, correct? The wielder is free to perform a full attack (however that might work with a lance) or attack and make a move action, yes?
you could indeed ride by and stab with the lance, but that's not what it is made to do..the heavy lance was made to use in a charge and brake footmen lines. But yes you could stab at people on foot very easily with a heavy lance
Regarding charging with a lance: the "charge" is the mount's move, correct? The wielder is free to perform a full attack (however that might work with a lance) or attack and make a move action, yes?you could indeed ride by and stab with the lance, but that's not what it is made to do..the heavy lance was made to use in a charge and brake footmen lines. But yes you could stab at people on foot very easily with a heavy lance
The way the lance description is explained, you can use it one handed on a mount...but its only effective to do so while mounted, otherwise you could use it two handed on the ground but its an effective weapon used like this.
The whole argument seems to hinge on the wording of the Lance in explaining that you could use it one handed while mounted, but the type of lance that is explained is more than a Longspear (which on that subject COULD be used two handed while mounted but you DONT get the special multiplier for damage that Lances enjoy), its more or less a typical knights lance with a long smooth conical body tapering to a sharp point and a small hilt capable of snugly fitting under someones arm - designed to be used one handed on a mount. (I've never seen anyone in movies or fiction use a Lance two handed on a mount...Spears sure, but they are hardly as effective).
many things about hating the fighter
That is not an anti-fighter thing. It seems to be an issue with people not wanting to adjust strategies from 3.5. Archery and paladins did not easily, if at all, strike fear into the hearts of DM's. Now they are not so easily dismissed, but instead of adapting the easy answer is to called it broken or OP. Paladins are not that hard to deal with. Archery is not either if some effort is put into it. These threads have come up more than once, and there have always been multiple strategies to make a DM's life easier by other board members. The game changed. We must change with it.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Regarding charging with a lance: the "charge" is the mount's move, correct? The wielder is free to perform a full attack (however that might work with a lance) or attack and make a move action, yes?
Nope.
"If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack."
However, do note:
"You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally."
PFRPG p. 202, under Mounted Combat, subheading Combat while Mounted.
Also, on the subject of full attack + charge, "charge" is a full-round action, so it cannot be combined with the full attack action, which is also a full-round action, unless you have some ability that specifically says otherwise (pounce being the obvious example). Even if you get to use the loophole that charge is a standard action (if you are allowed only single actions, as when slowed, staggered, or during a surprise round), it still doesn't fit into the same round as a full attack.
And, in case you needed more ammunition for that side of the argument, "charge" is its own action. If you had some form of special cheatification that allowed you to get enough extra actions during a round to do both, the charge and the full attack still would be separate actions, so charge benefits would not carry over to the separate action of making a full attack.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I wonder, do you apply the same reasoning to a longspear used from a mount? Is it possible to use a longspear from a mount in your estimation? What are the fundamental differences between using a longspear and a lance while not mounted and while mounted?
My own two cents on this issue is that I cannot visualise how a character can grip a lance with two hands and hold it appropiately on their horse (I know thats realism but how you attack with the lance is based on realism in the game). Its designed to nestle under the characters armpit while they hold it one handed...theres no room or way a character could somehow get another hand on it.All in the type of lance. The lance in the book is a knights lance, which is not meant to be used on foot or with two hands. The other type of lances were more or less long spears and when used two handed could not pull a charge off but more a ride by stabbing for the most part.
So really if ya want that kind of lance use the long spear but it would not do the charging damage as it is not made for that kind of attack.
Not meant to be used on foot or with two hands =/= cannot be used on foot or with two hands.
Also, there are a metric ton of real-world weapons ported into D&D that no sane warrior would have attempted to use mounted, like any polearm, a greatsword or greataxe or heavy flail. COULD you use them while mounted? Maybe. WOULD you? Of course not.
And yet... here we are in D&D, and you can use a greatsword or bec de corbin or pike from horseback, and you can use a lance on foot.
It so happens that the game stats for using a lance on foot are identical to using a longspear on foot. It also so happens that lance is considered a 'martial' weapon while longspear is relegated to the 'simple' category because lance ALSO does something that longspear does not do - it can be used on foot *AND* it can be used with special bonuses while mounted.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
My own two cents on this issue is that I cannot visualise how a character can grip a lance with two hands and hold it appropiately on their horse (I know thats realism but how you attack with the lance is based on realism in the game). Its designed to nestle under the characters armpit while they hold it one handed...theres no room or way a character could somehow get another hand on it.As for using two lances on a horse...while its virtually impossible based on realism, it might be possible in game though your only ever going to get away with this tactic outdoors where theres lots of room and a direct line to charge at your enemy with.
Last time someone tried this tactic one of the party spellcasters put down a Spike Stones spell which pretty much took this advantage away from the character. You could reasonably do the same thing with Entangle and so forth as well.
I think this is the key point for the people on the side of the argument saying "Hey, what's the big deal with letting a fighter do this?" Realism aside, this trick that a fighter is building his whole career around can be trivially negated by the most rudimentary of spells.
In order to be able to do it well enough for it to matter, the fighter probably needs to be at least level 5 to make the double-lance trick a viable option. (WF lance, WS lance, TWF, Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack, Spirited Charge, plus weapon training (pole arms)) To REALLY be any good at it he'd need to be higher level.
Yet, as you yourself say, this entire trick that he's built his character around can be punked by a 1st level spell. "Last time someone tried this tactic... WE SHOWED HIM WHO WAS BOSS!" And so you did. But does that mean he shouldn't be able to even have the trick in the first place?
Come on, charge is hardly a gimme tactic. It is blocked by any kind of barrier between you and the target.
Or allies standing in the way.
Or enemies between you and the creature you REALLY want to attack.
Or ANY kind of difficult terrain or effect that slows movement, including conditions where you can't see and have to move more slowly (like, say obscuring mist).
Or any path of movement that would cause your 10-foot square mount (assuming you're medium) to be slowed.
Or dealing with foes that fly or climb or swim or stand on top of a wall or otherwise stay out of reach (barring a special mount).
In sum, charge tricks are nice, but there are a billion things that can screw them up. Why bring out the "realism hammer" on how many hands you can use to hold a lance (honestly, there's NO WAY you can imagine someone designing a lance that could be held with two hands? It is impossible that, in a world where the "middle ages" tech period lasts thousands of years, that no one could have designed and perfected such a thing?) but not any of the myriad other things that make no realistic sense.
Not even touching the issue of spellcasting, why can a sword EVER harm someone in gaseous form? Or an elemental? Or an ooze? Realistically, it should be impossible, right?
Why is this one thing your "line in the sand"?
I should note, this is a rhetorical question more than anything. This debate and argument has been had ad nauseum on these boards and probably others. Just wanted to chip in my two cents. Move along, nothing to see here. These are not the mounted combat dual-lance-wielding droids you're looking for... :)
My only thing against the dual wielding lancer is the whole, "Can't charge with two weapons" thing.
And honestly I could see a feat that allows you to move and attack with two weapons if you have two weapon fighting (and to also allow such on a charge of course).
Heck the penalties you are taking for doing so are steep already - 4 to attack, -2 to AC, have to be mounted etc etc...
Over all my question on "realism" isn't "Is it silly" or "was this ever done IRL" but "Is it something I could see in a final fantasy game" if so I'll generally let the guy get away with it. After all fighters should get nice things every now and then too.
'Sides, melee is for losers anyways ;D
(Joke! Joke folks! Put away the pitch forks already!)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Also, on the subject of full attack + charge, "charge" is a full-round action, so it cannot be combined with the full attack action, which is also a full-round action, unless you have some ability that specifically says otherwise (pounce being the obvious example). Even if you get to use the loophole that charge is a standard action (if you are allowed only single actions, as when slowed, staggered, or during a surprise round), it still doesn't fit into the same round as a full attack.
Yes, but it's the mount that's charging, not the wielder. The restriction to a single melee attack (although allowing the wielder a regular move action as well) makes sense, but that's not a restriction on charge. For example, in PF RPG, a mid-level mounted lancer could use Vital Strike, something he couldn't do at the end of his own charge.
Yes, but it's the mount that's charging, not the wielder. The restriction to a single melee attack (although allowing the wielder a regular move action as well) makes sense, but that's not a restriction on charge. For example, in PF RPG, a mid-level mounted lancer could use Vital Strike, something he couldn't do at the end of his own charge.
Also, on the subject of full attack + charge, "charge" is a full-round action, so it cannot be combined with the full attack action, which is also a full-round action, unless you have some ability that specifically says otherwise (pounce being the obvious example). Even if you get to use the loophole that charge is a standard action (if you are allowed only single actions, as when slowed, staggered, or during a surprise round), it still doesn't fit into the same round as a full attack.
PRD
Mounted Combat..........
Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action.
When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can't make a full attack. Even at your mount's full speed, you don't take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Yes, but it's the mount that's charging, not the wielder. The restriction to a single melee attack (although allowing the wielder a regular move action as well) makes sense, but that's not a restriction on charge. For example, in PF RPG, a mid-level mounted lancer could use Vital Strike, something he couldn't do at the end of his own charge.
Also, on the subject of full attack + charge, "charge" is a full-round action, so it cannot be combined with the full attack action, which is also a full-round action, unless you have some ability that specifically says otherwise (pounce being the obvious example). Even if you get to use the loophole that charge is a standard action (if you are allowed only single actions, as when slowed, staggered, or during a surprise round), it still doesn't fit into the same round as a full attack.
Interesting corner case, since the "lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount" - you are correct, the rider isn't charging, only the mount is, even though the rider gets the attack bonus and AC penalty as if they were the one charging in three out of four sentences on the subject. The exception is the last of three sentences under Combat while Mounted where it phrases things differently:
"When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance."
This is different than the text under the lance weapon and implies that the rider is charging as well. Perhaps there should be a separate action called "mounted charge"!
But yeah, if you go with the weight of 3 sentences (which either state or imply that the mount is the charger) vs. 1, then the rider can do anything he likes during the round that his mount charges, as long as none of it involves making more than a single melee attack.