Plus side, this thread has stayed more on topic than most related to that other one.Don't you dare accuse us of staying on-topic! I mean, that's really low, even for these boards. :D
Sorry. D:
Basically you're arguing about the balance of a game that you don't really understand, and like a guy arguing that baseball stadiums need to be twice as big because home runs are overpowered, you seem silly to people with a stronger understanding of the game.
Yeah clearly - anyone who doesn't spend weeks to find gamebreaking, cheesy character concepts (which I admittedly do not), doesn't "reallly understand the game".
Could be the other way round, you know?
BTW: Playing 3E since 2000, having fun since 2000. But no, don't really understand the game. Like, at all.
Some people. *shakes head*
Doing something for a long time does not necessarily mean one truly understands it.
I work in a call center and have seen people who work there for 10 years who are still somehow unable to grasp the basic tenets of their job. At all. It's amazing to me that they remain employed.
Then again, I might never understand anything at all. After all, I assume Pounce and Iterative Attacks working together was what the rules intended, and who even knows at this point.
Basically you're arguing about the balance of a game that you don't really understand, and like a guy arguing that baseball stadiums need to be twice as big because home runs are overpowered, you seem silly to people with a stronger understanding of the game.
Yeah clearly - anyone who doesn't spend weeks to find gamebreaking, cheesy character concepts (which I admittedly do not), doesn't "reallly understand the game".
Could be the other way round, you know?
BTW: Playing 3E since 2000, having fun since 2000. But no, don't really understand the game. Like, at all.
Some people. *shakes head*
That's just it -- you don't need to "spend weeks to find gamebreaking cheesy character concepts." If it's a big stretch for you to put together, "Hmm. Melee characters do a lot of damage if they can full attack, and not so much damage at higher levels if they can't full attack. If I put together a character that can full attack a lot, that'll be way more effective than one that can't." then... yeah, mechanically, you don't really understand the game. That's 3.X/PF Martial Characters 101.
Lots of people play Monopoly without the auction rules and putting all the cash on free parking and believe that's how the game is supposed to be played. Whether or not they have fun doing so in no way speaks to how well they understand the game.
Also, while I understand that Pathfinder is generally not a competitive game, I'm still going to leave this here, because I think you can learn something from it.
|
That article reminds me why some tournaments make me mad. They have a word for people who aren't scrubs by his definition... an abuser. Here we might call them munchkins. I do not tolerate abuse of the rules as GM, as a competitive player, or observer. Game theory then becomes about the ways to abuse the game. I'm not talking about things that can be reasonably nixed. I'm talking about the lesser Akumas that require a risky counter.
HOWEVER, ignoring his call to abuse the system, SIRLIN has a good philosophy. RAGELANCEPOUNCE is one of those things that can be countered. Cheesy? Sure. Would I allow it at my table? No, unless someone genuinely did not do it for the cheese. I strive to have a good game free of abuse.
If the GM and players are all on the same level RAGELANCEPOUNCE is in no way game breaking. If you have a bunch of players using things like fireball to damage single targets at level 12+ however the GM probably shouldn't set the party against something like AM BARBARIAN. It gets trickier if you have a group with mixed levels of ability. Things like this can be good learning experiences though. I am running a more cut throat campaign then usual for my players and their character builds are improving, the same with tactics, and enjoyment.
That's just it -- you don't need to "spend weeks to find gamebreaking cheesy character concepts." If it's a big stretch for you to put together, "Hmm. Melee characters do a lot of damage if they can full attack, and not so much damage at higher levels if they can't full attack. If I put together a character that can full attack a lot, that'll be way more effective than one that can't." then... yeah, mechanically, you don't really understand the game. That's 3.X/PF Martial Characters 101.
I really don't know if its insulting or amusing that you infer from my comments that it is not clear to me that a lot of full attacks are good.
Let me restate my opinion:
The lance damage bonus (x2 or x3 with the right feat) AND the full attack after moving (Greater beast totem / Mounted Skirmisher) are both there to allow melees to deal meaningful damage after moving in a round.
The two abilites working together are over-the-top good.
Surely there are other ways to break the game, but this is surely one of them. Most people here agree. Your arrogant remarks won't change that, I am afraid, they just make you look like a ... not very likeable person.
EDIT:
I will point fingers once this nonsense gets errata'd. ;)
Yes, there's more damage involved, but dealing 1,000 damage to a creature with 200 hit points doesn't provide any real benefit over dealing 201 damage to a creature with 200 hit points.
No character should be able to kill a demon lord with one attack. At least not before somewhere way into epic levels.
I thought we were talking about characters killing demon lords with one full attack. Did you mean 'in one round'?
Yes, full attack one round - I think its pretty clear wehat I meant.
|
Yes, full attack one round - I think its pretty clear wehat I meant.
Actually, lots of times the problem is the designers didn't understand their own system.
Lots of people killed demon lords back in 1e because they only had like 96 HP or something.
Damage is important sure, but controlling the battlefield and the situation is still better.
This "nonsense" won't get errata because it's existed for more than 10 years now and hasn't caused any fundamental problems with the game. It isn't like Trinam discovered pounce + charging lance attacks.
Frankly, the extra damage from multiple charge attacks with a lance isn't that big of a deal over the damage from any charging full attack by a full BAB character that knows what he's doing. Yes, there's more damage involved, but dealing 1,000 damage to a creature with 200 hit points doesn't provide any real benefit over dealing 201 damage to a creature with 200 hit points.
How has this existed for more than 10 years as a character option? Barbarians could not pounce before. Unless they incorporated this into a splat book, I'm unaware that this existed as a standard character option.
I guess you're assuming we all bought every splat book and it must have come out of one of them. Because it certainly wasn't in the early 3.0 rules or the common splat books.
I have not seen the developers create the kind of power combinations I see in Pathfinder with this charging, full attack lance ability. I doubt they ever intended to include it. Just because they are slow to errata it, doesn't mean they intended for it to be in the game.
I removed some posts. I'm not sure who was being called a 'doody head', but don't do that.
I really don't know if its insulting or amusing that you infer from my comments that it is not clear to me that a lot of full attacks are good.
Feel free to take it however you want.
I'll say again: pick a level at which the spirited charge / full attack combo is possible. If you can't come up with ten more game-breaking characters at that level, you aren't really trying.
It may be errata'd. It may not be errata'd. That's pretty meaningless to the discussion. If you don't understand why, maybe we'll have to agree to stop talking past each other and disagree.
If there's a less arrogant-sounding way to tell you that you're completely out-in-left-field wrong, feel free to suggest it and I'll consider it in the future. I think I can gracefully argue with someone who's wrong in a "I think black is white" sense but not someone who's wrong in a "I think black is pickle" sense -- the latter case seems so orthogonal to the topic to me that I honestly don't know how to respond to it in a non-condescending way.
The disconnect is this: you think this is the only build that can put out ridiculous damage at those levels, so you think that one thing needs to be nerfed to put it back into line.
Whereas the people disagree with you realize that:
1) Lots of other builds can do damage that's on that order of magnitude at the same level, and,
2) If you made a list of the top ten most ridiculous characters you could make, ragelancepouncing barbarian might not even make the list.
Basically you're arguing about the balance of a game that you don't really understand, and like a guy arguing that baseball stadiums need to be twice as big because home runs are overpowered, you seem silly to people with a stronger understanding of the game.
I think charging with a lance and getting a full attack with the Lance/Spirited charge bonus would make the top 10. The other aspects of AM BARBARIAN would not make the top 10. It's a tame build save for the lance damage, which can be had by several different classes to even greater effect than a barbarian. A cavalier doing this at level 20 would be make the barbarian damage something a DM would reminisce about in a pleasant way.
I totaled the damage up for a level 20 Order of the Sword cavalier with an eidolon mount with strength maxed as far as it could go, the damage was I believe 4d8+272 per attack using challenge. Utterly and completely ridiculous.
The sad truth is that a lvl 20 cavalier using challenge can get that damage on one attack anyhow, which will still kill a great many things in one hit. If he crits, it is game over for almost any creature. I've noticed people posting is weak on this board. I can only assume they mean overall as a class because as far as damage goes, the cavalier is a vicious damage beast when mounted.
That article reminds me why some tournaments make me mad. They have a word for people who aren't scrubs by his definition... an abuser. Here we might call them munchkins. I do not tolerate abuse of the rules as GM, as a competitive player, or observer. Game theory then becomes about the ways to abuse the game. I'm not talking about things that can be reasonably nixed. I'm talking about the lesser Akumas that require a risky counter.
The thing that I would hope people would get out of it is: generally you want to try to deal with a game as it is rather than soft-banning things you think are "too good", because:
1) They're not perfect, they do make mistakes, but generally speaking, the game designers know more about what balances the game than you do. Trying to "patch" the game on your own, you're usually at least as likely to break things worse than fix things. For example, all the people arguing in another thread a month ago that rogues would be crazy broken if you let them sneak attack more than once per round, which they disallowed in their games.
Even if you correctly identify something that's too good, it's very easy to lose sight of the bigger picture or issues around changing it. To keep with Sirlin's Street Fighter example, maybe you decide to soft-ban throws, but you've completely lost sight of the issue that throws were meant to address/fix.
2) The only way to learn how to deal with something is to play with it. If you knee-jerk ban lance pouncing, you'll never realize the dozen reasons it's actually not as good as you first thought it was. Meanwhile, other people have moved past it to figuring out what beats it to figuring out what in turn beats that.
And maybe you're a person who doesn't like the tactical side of the game at all, but then at that point, where do you draw the line? Maybe in those games the PCs win all the time and it doesn't really matter. I don't even know.
|
|
The thing that I would hope people would get out of it is: generally you want to try to deal with a game as it is rather than soft-banning things you think are "too good", because:
1) They're not perfect, they do make mistakes, but generally speaking, the game designers know more about what balances the game than you do. Trying to "patch" the game on your own, you're usually at least as likely to break things worse than fix things. For example, all the people arguing in another thread a month ago that rogues would be crazy broken if you let them sneak attack more than once per round, which they disallowed in their games.
Even if you correctly identify something that's too good, it's very easy to lose sight of the bigger picture or issues around changing it. To keep with Sirlin's Street Fighter example, maybe you decide to soft-ban throws, but you've completely lost sight of the issue that throws were meant to address/fix.
2) The only way to learn how to deal with something is to play with it. If you knee-jerk ban lance pouncing, you'll never realize the dozen reasons it's actually not as good as you first thought it was. Meanwhile, other people have moved past it to figuring out what beats it to figuring out what in turn beats that.
And maybe you're a person who doesn't like the tactical side of the game at all, but then at that point, where do you draw the line? Maybe in those games the PCs win all the time and it doesn't really matter. I don't even know.
That's actually the reason why I stopped with house rules. It NEVER ends. Core was "balanced", then APG was released and thing got broken, so let's ban those. And then UM comes out and more crap needs to be banned. And then UC. Etc. It never ends.
For example, all the people arguing in another thread a month ago that rogues would be crazy broken if you let them sneak attack more than once per round, which they disallowed in their games.
That was ONE GUY.
All other people in this thread - me among them - strongly disagreed with him.
If there's a less arrogant-sounding way to tell you that you're completely out-in-left-field wrong, feel free to suggest it and I'll consider it in the future. I think I can gracefully argue with someone who's wrong in a "I think black is white" sense but not someone who's wrong in a "I think black is pickle" sense -- the latter case seems so orthogonal to the topic to me that I honestly don't know how to respond to it in a non-condescending way.
Sorry, its certainly not my responsibility to teach you how to conduct a civil discussion.
Dire Mongoose perfectly summarizes my position. Calling someone a munchkin or an abuser or his tactics cheesy isn't helpful in this case. To imagine invisible lines around the rules that aren't there is a disservice to the system and the players.
The only rules of engagement are the rules in the rulebook, unless there are house rules in which case they have to be either a)agreed upon by ALL playing or b)shown to the players by the DM before play begins i.e. before character creation.
And yeah, it's a strong build but there are still counters. LOTS of them. I implore a DM up against a ragelancepounce barbarian to use these to his advantage and play smart.
And yeah, it's a strong build but there are still counters. LOTS of them. I implore a DM up against a ragelancepounce barbarian to use these to his advantage and play smart.
Hm, I certainly would not allow "ragelancepounce" in my game (not than any of my players would build such an monstrosity), but is it not frustrating for a player if the DM constantly counters his shtick because it would break the game if he can use it?
The only rules of engagement are the rules in the rulebook, unless there are house rules in which case they have to be either a)agreed upon by ALL playing or b)shown to the players by the DM before play begins i.e. before character creation.
Says you. In our games its core rules and everything else needs explicit GM approval - although usually the GM will approve almost anything. Helps a lot in detaining the worst abominations.....
Says you. In our games its core rules and everything else needs explicit GM approval - although usually the GM will approve almost anything. Helps a lot in detaining the worst abominations.....
When did I say otherwise? You're arguing with shadows now. Regardless of what books you allow, unless otherwise stated before character creation the rules work as put forth in those books.
As for your other comment, I'm not suggesting he purposely create encounters that are immune to the tactic, you're assuming too much. I'm suggesting something like, oh, the big dragon be something more than a bag of hit points? If he's a smart dragon he'll know the players are coming. He'll put up defenses in his lair, summon reinforcements, make himself invisible, and otherwise present a challenge to the entire party not just the barbarian. If the players are smart enough to circumvent those obstacles then they have outwitted the dragon and the barbarian charging and killing it is just finishing the job.
Seriously, what opponents at that level are purely melee threats? Dragons are super genius level magic users with all sorts of mad skillz at their disposal. This isn't Final Fantasy where you just trade blows until someone dies from it.
No character should be able to kill a demon lord with one attack. At least not before somewhere way into epic levels.
Have seen a base paladin full attack such a creature.
Have seen a base paladin full attack such a creature.
And what was the damage output of that paladin vs. the demon? Probably nowhere near 3d8 + 150 per attack.
And what was the damage output of that paladin vs. the demon? Probably nowhere near 3d8 + 150 per attack.
No buts its still dead in one round which is what i quoted you about.
Complete Champion's 'Spirit Lion Totem' alternate class feature.
Ah. I never picked up that book. Put out enough books and something unwanted will make it in. Just seems to have happened far earlier in Pathfinder, which is a little disappointing.
Fortunately, I'm an experienced enough DM to know how to modify monsters to deal with this. Which is why I gave one Tarn Linnormo 3850 hit points. Should be good fun for the party to deal with.
No buts its still dead in one round which is what i quoted you about.
A demon lord has on the order of 500 hitpoints minimum (Treerazer has 574, and he is not a full demon lord). Show me the paladin who can one-round that.
The thing that I would hope people would get out of it is: generally you want to try to deal with a game as it is rather than soft-banning things you think are "too good", because:
1) They're not perfect, they do make mistakes, but generally speaking, the game designers know more about what balances the game than you do. Trying to "patch" the game on your own, you're usually at least as likely to break things worse than fix things. For example, all the people arguing in another thread a month ago that rogues would be crazy broken if you let them sneak attack more than once per round, which they disallowed in their games.
Even if you correctly identify something that's too good, it's very easy to lose sight of the bigger picture or issues around changing it. To keep with Sirlin's Street Fighter example, maybe you decide to soft-ban throws, but you've completely lost sight of the issue that throws were meant to address/fix.
2) The only way to learn how to deal with something is to play with it. If you knee-jerk ban lance pouncing, you'll never realize the dozen reasons it's actually not as good as you first thought it was. Meanwhile, other people have moved past it to figuring out what beats it to figuring out what in turn beats that.
And maybe you're a person who doesn't like the tactical side of the game at all, but then at that point, where do you draw the line? Maybe in those games the PCs win all the time and it doesn't really matter. I don't even know.
I always play something first to see how it works and how it can be countered. That part I agree with. The full attack lance pouncing is obviously far beyond reasonable. I think it will eventually get taken care of in errata.
Dire Mongoose perfectly summarizes my position. Calling someone a munchkin or an abuser or his tactics cheesy isn't helpful in this case. To imagine invisible lines around the rules that aren't there is a disservice to the system and the players.
The only rules of engagement are the rules in the rulebook, unless there are house rules in which case they have to be either a)agreed upon by ALL playing or b)shown to the players by the DM before play begins i.e. before character creation.
And yeah, it's a strong build but there are still counters. LOTS of them. I implore a DM up against a ragelancepounce barbarian to use these to his advantage and play smart.
Lance pouncing is so ridiculously overpowered that I am actually pretty irritated that game designers haven't moved on this much faster. Sure, there are counters. But they are not counters that can be resaonably used on a consistent basis. Which means the lance pouncer pretty much ruins every single combat except the ones you specifically create a plan to deal with it.
I see Buhlman posting about the Echo Spell combination that [b]Raving Dork[/i] showed to be problematic, they haven't moved on that either. Probably because not enough players are using it. Most DMs will nip this stuff in the bud themselves. But it sure would be nice to see the game designers nip it in the bud for us. It's pretty insane to think they have any justification for a full attack gaining the full benefits of Spirited Charge and a Lance for all the attacks. It should be taken care of by now. I would have already killed it if I were on the Pathfinder staff along with Sap Master lunacy and quite a few spells.
Care to re-visit your assertions given the facts above?
Sword and Fist. Never saw the Cavalier option. No one played one. Prc was it. And what was the wording of the ability? I would like to see it before I assume you are correct.
No. I don't feel the need to revisit my assertions for an abilty from a Prc versus a rage power or a line of feats anyone can take. Prcs might have other limters that deter someone from taking the class,whereas Beast Totem or four feats has no such deterrent. Beast Totem is clearly the best option for a totem and well worth the investment of three rage powers. And the Mounted Combat, Spirited Charge, Trick Riding, and Mounted Skirmisher line are also very beneficial all the way up.
Different situations. But would still like to read the wording of the ability to see if it did allow a full attack lance charge.
Lance pouncing is so ridiculously overpowered that I am actually pretty irritated that game designers haven't moved on this much faster. Sure, there are counters. But they are not counters that can be resaonably used on a consistent basis. Which means the lance pouncer pretty much ruins every single combat except the ones you specifically create a plan to deal with it.
Really not. I mean it is pretty powerful...at really high levels.
It requires an IMMENSE amount of prep. You need some very specific builds, a flying mount, a straight line to charge in, and a single enemy encounter.Not playing on a vast, featureless plain, against a single enemy that stands there and trades blows with the party counters the tactic.
Fozbek,
Full Mounted Attack:At 6th level, the mounted cavalier may attack as a standard action when his mount moves more than 5 feet (assuming an opponent exists to be attacked), rather than as a partial action.
I forget how actions work, but doesn't say full attack after movement. This does not allow a charging lance pounce. Charging was still a full round action and could not be broken up. This allows a full attack after a move as a standard action. That is different and shows the game designers were aware of how this works unless charging worked differently in 3.0.
So explain to me how this is the same? If you can make a full attack as a standard action after moving more than 5 feet, that does not mean you make a full attack at the end of a charge.
Wording is different. That is very, very clear.
Either provide the 3.0 version of charge which shows otherwise, or I must ask you the same question: Do you care to revise your assertion?
A demon lord has on the order of 500 hitpoints minimum (Treerazer has 574, and he is not a full demon lord). Show me the paladin who can one-round that.
Not the best optimizer but with a +4 holy speed evil outsider bane greatsword using power attack and smite and 30 str i can manage 6d6+18(PA)+15(STR)+7(enhancement bonus)+24(Smite) plus and extra 24 for the first smite.
So 5 hits is 30d6+320 average on a d6 is 3.5 so 105 more for 449 so your right i only did roughly 75% of his health guess i didn't ruin the encounter since it takes me and one other person to kill it in one round.
Edited to add in Bracelt of silver smite
Really not. I mean it is pretty powerful...at really high levels.
It requires an IMMENSE amount of prep. You need some very specific builds, a flying mount, a straight line to charge in, and a single enemy encounter.Not playing on a vast, featureless plain, against a single enemy that stands there and trades blows with the party counters the tactic.
I can tell that you are well aware how hard player's work to overcome impediements to their success. A charge is very easy to set up. My players know how to set it up. It is very difficult to block for a straight up melee creature like a dragon or other large powerful creature.
fly is a common spell for engagement. My players usually have an item that gives flying ability or a spell available.
feather step is another ability that allows unimpeded movement over difficult terrain.
haste increases all forms of movement by 30 feet including mounted, which increases charge distance by 60 feet. Combined with regular movement that is well beyond breath weapon range.
Now you have Dragon Style martial arts which eliminates the impediment of difficult terrain for charging. But you would have to buy it for your mount to make it work. You can by it for a special mount too. Two feats.
Not the best optimizer but with a +4 holy speed evil outsider bane greatsword using power attack and smite and 30 str i can manage 6d6+18(PA)+15(STR)+7(enhancement bonus)+20(Smite) plus and extra 20 for the first smite.
So 5 hits is 30d6+320 average on a d6 is 3.5 so 105 more for 425 so your right i only did roughly 75% of his health guess i didn't ruin the encounter since it takes me and one other person to kill it in one round.
You may miss a few times as well. Whereas the lance charge full attack does the same damage in two hits. His first highest BAB and his haste attack.
Did you see the 4d8+272 damage for the 20th level cavalier? What you would you do as a DM if every major encounter against a big evil dragon type this guy first round charges for 4d8+272 per attack.
Would you start playing every dragon, giant, demon lord, and the like already aware of this guy's major attack and ready to counter it? Wouldn't that get just as old for the player?
You may miss a few times as well. Whereas the lance charge full attack does the same damage in two hits. His first highest BAB and his haste attack.
Did you see the 4d8+272 damage for the 20th level cavalier? What you would you do as a DM if every major encounter against a big evil dragon type this guy first round charges for 4d8+272 per attack.
Would you start playing every dragon, giant, demon lord, and the like already aware of this guy's major attack and ready to counter it? Wouldn't that get just as old for the player?
Nope not every time only when its time for the BBEG at the end of the story. See I don't get upset when my players have a OP build because they don't plan for it it just happens and they use it responsibly.
As for encounters at around 12th level i stop using stock anything, its a habit i picked up from a old player who would have stat blocks memorized and know just what to do, i plan encounters so that AM gets his fun while everyone else gets theres.
Not the best optimizer but with a +4 holy speed evil outsider bane greatsword using power attack and smite and 30 str i can manage 6d6+18(PA)+15(STR)+7(enhancement bonus)+24(Smite) plus and extra 24 for the first smite.
So 5 hits is 30d6+320 average on a d6 is 3.5 so 105 more for 449 so your right i only did roughly 75% of his health guess i didn't ruin the encounter since it takes me and one other person to kill it in one round.
Edited to add in Bracelt of silver smite
I do not think that this is problematic.
- This is a paladin fighting against his chosen foe, with a weapon specifically enchanted against his chosen foe. Against other types of enemies he will be much reduced in effectiveness.
- He probably will not hit with all his attacks AND (important) it takes him at least one round to get there before he gets a full attack.
- Also the "other person" probably will not be able to beat the demon lords DR as easily as the paladin (or: not at all).
EDIT:
No 1: why +24 for the smite - it should be +20 for a lvl 20 Paladin.
No 2: The ragelancepounce Bbn does his insane 3d8+150 dmg way before lvl 20.
We are not talking about a lvl 20 character killing a demon lord in one round, but possibly lvl 15 or even below.
24 from the bracelet and just giving you close to what you asked for i know i failed to kill treerazer but it still stands a party could one round the guy with a halfway decent pally and one other good damage dealer.
That being said this thread isn't about AM its about my beastmorph alchemist who isn't planning on taking feral mutagen.
This is good, but bear in mind if you're readying for him dropping out of rage, you also need to GIVE him a reason to drop out of rage. Just readying and not doing anything worth dropping for?
That's asking for a full attack from a raging barbarian, and that is a painful thing.
No, my Projected Images and hordes of mooks will keep him busy while my terrain modifying spells tempt him to use his Spell Sunder, then tempt him to drop out of rage long enough to recharge it....
AND (important) it takes him at least one round to get there before he gets a full attack.
Nope. There's lots of ways to fix that. Honestly, a level 20 martial character that doesn't is intentionally choosing to play a mechanically weak character -- like the guy who rolls up a pacifist fighter or the cleric that doesn't like metal. Which, hey, it's a roleplaying game and that's fine, but let's not pretend he's not intentionally gimping himself.
Laziest two solutions: mounted skirmisher or a sorcerer cohort with spells like teleport. (The now-iconic AM BARBARIAN has a mount cohort, so it's not like we're comparing apples to oranges here.)
No 1: why +24 for the smite - it should be +20 for a lvl 20 Paladin.
Silver smite bracelet. He did call that out specifically.
Silver smite bracelet. He did call that out specifically.
Yeah, he already stated that.
Laziest two solutions: mounted skirmisher or a sorcerer cohort with spells like teleport. (The now-iconic AM BARBARIAN has a mount cohort, so it's not like we're comparing apples to oranges here.)
The first requires dedicated feat investment (can be done, of course) and that the mount is able reach the enemy within one move distance. Usually combats begin at greater distances (overland / wilderness); or a mount is not present (in dungeons).
Cohorts: I do not consider cohorts to be part of a character. In my eyes, cohorts are a concept to alleviate problems a group that consists of only two or three players might have. Still, another player could teleport you.
In any way, I strongly disagree with the notion that a martial character who is not able to full attack in melee in the first round of combat reliably is "intentionally gimping himself".
I can tell that you are well aware how hard player's work to overcome impediements to their success. A charge is very easy to set up. My players know how to set it up. It is very difficult to block for a straight up melee creature like a dragon or other large powerful creature.
Great. Then your players are all working together to overcome a challenge. Why is that something you want to STOP?
Also, let's assume that this guy can always, 100%, unfailingly set up a charge on the first round. DON'T PUT HIM UP AGAINST A SINGLE ENEMY!!!!!
Seriously.